Laser projector and planetarium-maker Evans & Sutherland will unveil a new system at this week’s InfoComm A/V show that produces a record video resolution of 8000×4000 pixels, or 16 times that of 1080p. The projector’s notable features might give planetariums and other so-called specialty locations, where it will be first used, the means to compete against the IMAX format going forward.

Key to the high-res is ESLP 8K’s NanoPixel imaging chip, according to Marketing Director Jan Bjernfalk, which allows “no visible gaps between pixels” in a fast-moving image, a level of detail other projectors often render as blurry. He says the “ribbon-style” architecture controlling the chips (achieved by twisting a flexible slate to deflect wavelengths of light, like undulations of a bridge) gives it its edge. Whereas the ESLP 8K’s ribbons create intermediate intensities between full-on and full-off pixel light transitions in 200 nanoseconds, the best LCD and LCoS devices switch in milliseconds, or thousands of times slower. The extra speed allows the three RGB chips of the ESLP 8K projector to also create a more intense colorful image (through a wider color spectrum) than others.

As we’ve noted before, the speed of frame transitions in chip architectures is important in video tech, especially in formats requiring realistic movement and depth, like 3D. The less so-called persistence present in left-eye/right-eye 3D image reproduction, the better an image looks. According to E&S, to get the same 3D resolution level of one ESLP 8K, you’d need four LCoS projectors or two DLP systems. Though DLPs actually come closest to E&S’s high-res production, they still fall behind by having each mirror on a chip correspond to a pixel on-screen. Many IMAX Digital Projection systems use DLP’s projectors.

The projector’s commercial availability (starting in the third quarter of this year) will be limited by its price tag, which is roughly $750,000. But E&S says the device offers good value over time through energy and materials efficiency — its laser lasts 30,000 hours, for example, doesn’t suffer a color change (LCoS bulbs need replacing every 800 hours), and uses about 1,500 watts. Also, high-end planetariums usually need to buy an optical star-ball (which can cost $1.5 million or more) and additional projectors to achieve the same resolution.

Moore’s Law says the projector’s semiconductors (including diode laser arrays) will eventually come down in price and size. Which brings us to the ESLP 8K’s potential as a challenger to big-screen projectors made by companies like Sony and IMAX.

The ESLP 8K’s new flat- and panoramic-screen form factor may give planetariums the opportunity to move beyond niche content to offer more big-time, blockbuster Hollywood movies. A quick resolution comparison shows makes clear it could compete. Sony recently announced it would install its 4K Digital Cinema Projection systems in all 309 of AMC’s theaters, starting this year, which go up to 4096×2160 in pixel resolution. IMAX uses two 2K Christie Digital DLP projectors for their new retrofitted digital IMAX screens, along with their patented image processing system. Because E&S produces content for domes focusing on VR and geosciences, they’re not seen as viable competition.  This is true mainly due to hurdles in location availability, price and licensing issues. For example, retrofitting theaters to fit the new digital screens from IMAX (which Roger Ebert calls “IMAX Lite”) costs over $100,000, not including the cost of sound and image processing for the full “IMAX Experience.” Yet, IMAX had to compromise its super-large screen-only identity in order to expand, and the video in these new theaters has been criticized as less than great. Sounds like an opening for competition to me. E&S’s Bjernfalk says the company isn’t currently looking into this option, but noted that the 8K supports the resolution of digital IMAX with only one projector.

In order to fully maximize the value of the ESLP 8K projector, planetariums are going to have to use the flat-screen option and be more aggressive in mixing up content. A compatible patent-pending process from E&S that converts large-format video (like that in the biggest IMAX screens) into domes could offer another option and may lead big-time movies to play consistently on dome-size screens.

This might be a good opportunity for planetariums to try something new. While IMAX screens and planetariums have co-existed for years, the popularity of the IMAX format and its growing slate of varied content, including nature movies previously only seen in planetariums, might be replacing people’s incentive to try out the latter. A small (and unscientific) poll sample of worldwide planetarium stats shows that while overall attendance has gone up over the last 14 years, the approximate attendance at the domes at the equivalent size of the biggest IMAX screens (from 18 to 30 meters), came to 6.8 million people in 2008. IMAX attendance, on the other hand, brought in a bit more than 9 million people through the gates, based on dividing its $130 million gross in 2008 by an average price of $14 a ticket. Admittedly, there are more big-screen IMAXs around the world than there are big-dome planetariums. Still, there’s way more buzz with IMAX. The Peoria Riverfront Museum, for example, recently noted in a funding paper that people tended to choose its IMAX-only shows over its planetarium-only shows by a 4-1 margin.

But James Hyder, the publisher of LF Examiner (a large-format film analysis publication), recently argued that the most immersive theaters aren’t confined to flat-screens and that IMAX isn’t necessarily the best large-format theater. Instead, he says, “[T]he star field presented on a large dome by a top quality electro-mechanical planetarium projector is arguably more immersive — in the sense of creating the illusion of reality — than any film or digital projector to date.” If E&S’s new projector can match the star field illusion for a digital projector for the first time, as it claims, then the resolution, the immersiveness, and the content could match the IMAX experience and offer even more options.

One could argue that the new popularity of the IMAX format (which until this year’s “IMAX Lite”, mostly relied on its big screens) has exposed more people to the big-screen experience and made planetariums a more desirable attraction, even without the latter’s use of popular Hollywood content or improved projectors. In effect, the status quo can continue and both can thrive in their own way. But IMAX Inc. wants to be the dominant big-picture format and more movie studios now want to show their movies there. Unless the future brings many more planetariums that can convert from domes to an IMAX-style theater, in a single space, I think the quality of the new projector technologies gives “specialty” venues no choice but to try to reel in bigger movie audiences in the long term. In the meantime, offering lovers of big-format pictures another cool option with great resolution can only be a good thing.

Follow Jose Fermoso on Twitter at Twitter.com/Fermoso

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

As Lost nears its end in 2010, many of its mysteries have yet to be solved, like the strange numbers that seem to haunt Hurley and the rest of the castaways. But if you played 2006′s The Lost Experience, one of the show’s related alternate reality games (ARGs), you would have found a big part of the answer to that mystery years ago.

This discrepancy is due to the mismanagement of the show’s ARGs, which has created canonical problems and led people to focus on wrong elements of the main story. But according to ARG experts, the creators of Lost aren’t all to blame. Instead, the timing between scripted TV drama and the live, fluid nature of ARGs, as well as apprehension on the part of show creators, often lead to unfulfilled resolutions.

A mismanaged ARG-show relationship can lead followers to derive unrealistic resolution expectations from both. This is most apparent with The Lost Experience, but all three of Lost’s ARGs so far can be considered frustrating failures. For example, the TV show uses hundreds of “hypertext” signifiers (like Jacob’s reading material) to encourage a deeper, more personal experience for those wishing to explore them. But the numbers are so prevalent on the show they are beyond signifiers, and when Lost explained their backstory through TLE and failed to answer them on the show, canon problems were created.

Canon histories govern the official rules proving the story’s reality within a made-up universe. They make stories logical and give them contextual meaning. Since the creators of Lost don’t consider anything outside the show to be canon, this makes the mystery of the numbers on the show burdensome and possibly false. The ARG for AI, released before the movie’s opening, focused on the mecha-human world of the movie and was very successful, eventually involving 3 million players and hundreds of sites. But the Pinocchio-type storyline in the movie barely explored that world, disappointing many.

Michelle Senderhauf, a pro ARG creator and staff writer at the Alternate Reality Gaming Network, says that revealing the backstory of the numbers separated the TV audience into groups with different levels of involvement.  Which may have been the producers’ intention in the first place — to give ARG players an early treat and drive “passive” show watchers “to search for more meaning.” This would be apropos for a series dealing with personal discovery. But, like Senderhauf says, if they reveal the meaning in the last season, “I wonder if the ARG players will be the ones who feel cheated. The big reveal on the show would have been spoiled by facts they learned years ago through the ARG.”

She says not mentioning a hint or “outright explanation” in the show that next season was a mistake that violated the rules of TV-show ARGs — these projects work best only when they’re fully in sync. The mistake was compounded when the characters spent most of season five in the 1970s-based Dharma Initiative (when much of the history of the numbers takes place, as revealed in TLE), that once again failed to be explained on the show.

Wendy Despain, who ran a grassroots ARG for Alias who runs the Quantum Content consultancy (specializing in interactive narrative), Senderhauf says the best ARGs allow players to affect the story while making sure canon isn’t compromised. She says Lost’s “Find 815″ ARG, released in 2007 between seasons 3 and 4, was potentially better because its main character only had a tangential connection to the show and the story coincided with that season’s fake plane crash reveal. Unfortunately, though, ARG players’ actions in the game didn’t matter. “They basically watched some videos and played flash games.” A show with a built-in alternate reality and a huge cast like Lost could have produced a great ARG, she says, but it seems like the creators of the Lost ARGs are “scared of letting the players interact with the world.”

But canon discrepancies are likely to come down to real-world problems, notes Wendy Despain, who runs the Quantum Content consultancy (specializing in interactive narrative). She notes that post-production changes and the fact that shows are filmed months before they’re aired impact the alignment of the story and the ARG. Since the show is most important, ARGs or parts of show story lines may fall by the wayside due to a financial or time crunch, as they already have, twice. But this means key pieces like the numbers (and the narrative tricks the show has employed) feel incomplete and sometimes lose their full intent. They’ve made it harder for both ARG players and people just watching the show to find meaning in critical moments by making them wonder whether “a connection or conflict they’ve discovered is a clue or just a canonical mismatch.”

But it might be too much to expect a show made by hundreds of people to work perfectly with an ARG to create a unified, sensible piece of art. For one, there’s not as much money to make on the ARG side as there is in making the show. For now, the ARGs are great value add-ons, build viewer loyalty, and insure that fanboys get involved to drive the hype. But like Despain says, “Nobody’s going to watch will pay for a TV show that can’t be enjoyed standing on its own two feet.”

As for the final season of the show, it looks like the last ARG has already started, focusing on the Egyptian mythology hinted at throughout the series. I’m willing to find meaning in the ‘magic of mystery‘,  but I just hope they don’t skip on explaining the Temple and the Statue on the show just so that Jack and Kate can make eyes at each other. Again.

Follow Jose Fermoso on Twitter at Twitter.com/Fermoso

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

3D as a form of entertainment has gone from novelty to semi-forgotten relic. Now, thanks to a recent spate of 3D movies, it’s back. It’s likely to stay around this time, because the business base is strong and new tech offers better options for capturing, distributing and displaying 3D images.

Old 3D production methods were hampered by guesstimates of depth perception and focus, but digital processes have vastly improved them. This has led to more 3D-capable TVs, 3D-enabled theaters, and better software tools. But not all 3D content is the same or made in the same way. 3ality Digital, for example, focuses on live-action recording, while others (RealD) mainly output 3D animation. Different flavors of cameras are used. Even the displays from which 3D images emanate can be different — a big IMAX using 3D projectors doesn’t have the depth of Zebra Imaging’s holograms, which come in handheld slabs. It’s all a bit overwhelming, but the key is that most can now be experienced by anyone, and what is not offers a tantalizing idea of what’s to come, including a move beyond movies and into the real meatspace of business and war.

Let’s take a look at three rising companies working in 3D:

3ality Digital

3ality works on several ends of the 3D process. It helps TV and movie productions upgrade equipment from 2D to 3D-capable and uses pixel-correcting software to improve depth perception.

Depth perception is one of the industry’s big challenges. To create 3D, two cameras must record an image at the same time, side by side, to replicate the two-eyed stereoscopic vision of people. But most 3D video contains imperfections that are hard to match up. This led to fuzziness in old 3D movies and gave people headaches. To improve video coordination, 3ality uses cameras with smart motors that calibrate key optical features (like aperture and focal length) and software that cleans up images. A trained “stereographer” can remotely operate these features to determine bad 3D alignments.

When 3ality post-produced U23D, the manual operation took up most of the schedule and the budget. That forced the company to improve soft calibration by natively embedding it in its systems. As a result, video engineers can now concentrate on effects editing as opposed to managing geometry, and the system is now easy enough that anyone can be 3D-certified. 3ality says upgrading adds about 10 percent to 25 percent to the cost of an average 2D TV broadcast. For an hour-long show, it measures out to about $750,000.

3ality’s main competition is Pace’s Fusion 3D camera. With input from director James Cameron, the cam is modded for different needs, like over-the-shoulder mobile filming. Pace also provides technical support for the equipment, but isn’t considered a full-service company.

Texas Instruments

Texas Instruments’ digital light processing (DLP) chips make 3D in HDTVs possible by separating video feeds into two different images.

Images are cut into a checkerboard “interlacing pattern,” where a set of alternating squares are assigned to the left eye, the other to the right, and are sent to the respective lenses of LCD shutter glasses. As a video plays, one eye sees a grid with a different depth than the other, and natural optics put the image together. But the eyes need help, which is where the millions of tiny mirrors on the surface of each chip gain their importance. The speed with which they switch between frames must be fast enough to replicate the speed that makes an object moving in real space have 3D depth. At 60 Hz per eye, DLP TV chips come close to eliminating fuzzy images. Still, they’re not quite there yet.

Currently, each mirror corresponds to at least one pixel of resolution on a screen, and they’ll likely get smaller. But look for faster “switching” to further improve video resolution. Studios are using DLP 3D to upgrade old movies, and 3D theaters also include it. While DLP dominates 3D chip processing, GPU giant Nvidia recently launched an IR emitter-based driver that enhances games in PCs and is compatible with TVs with DLP chips.

Zebra Imaging

A company is bringing full-color, glasses-free holograms to life, and R2D2‘s got nothing to do with it. Instead, Zebra Imaging creates true 3D objects through software and a fast, powerful printing machine.

ZI’s software places a virtual camera inside every point of a digital model’s holographic vertical plane, in order to record its surface volume. Since there are about a million of these points, the amount of data is huge. Zebra then prints the data (containing distinct POVs) to a plastic polymer, creating a sheet full of 1-mm holo tile encryptions. Each tile is basically an image data conductor sensitive to light. When light is shined, its energy scatters around and all image angles are revealed at once, popping up a free-standing 3D model. When I reached out to “touch” the 3D buildings in a demo, I felt nothing but air, revealing a true optical illusion.

Most other autostereoscopic tech uses enhanced versions of LCDs for displays, like Alioscopy‘s use of a lenticular lens array or the fast frame rates of Philips’ Quad Full TV.

This tech is important for a few reasons. Its printing scalability (and physical flexibility) offers the best portable 3D-hologram imaging yet. The wide angles and true depth volume of the renders help people collaborate easier in real space, as opposed to a 2D screen (and might help avoid visual fatigue). And the 3D slabs are cheaper and faster to make than models made of other materials, like clay. This is why the U.S. Army likes them — maps of constantly changing battlefields can be printed on the fly.

Unfortunately, the prints still cost thousands of dollars, so it’ll be a few years before they’re widely available.

Follow Jose Fermoso on Twitter at twitter.com/fermoso

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Report: 3-D Computing From Digital Cinema to GPUs
• Report: 3DTV Market is Ready for Takeoff
• Report: The Future of Netbooks!

The price thresholds for the new printer, called the ColorQube 9200, are quite specific. Printing colors in a letter-size page (up to about 186,000 color spots), costs a penny. The second level, which costs 3 cents, can use up to 1.9 million spots, or, by our estimate, about 8.6 percent of the total area of a page (to its edges). Anything over that is charged as an 8-cent, full-color print. Because ranges are determined by an online system, any price gouging is minimized.

The printer boasts some high-speed and energy-friendly improvements as well. Xerox says the ColorQube 9200 produces 90 percent less overall waste than its previous printers, and its clients will receive an unlimited license to use GreenPrint’s quality print-management, waste-tracking software. And the machine itself has a smart power-saving mode.

This initiative might work, considering that 2.24 trillion pages were printed by companies last year, suggesting paper is still an indispensable material. Most businesses aren’t yet ready to move all their documents to the cloud.

But there are reasons why it’s going to be a hard sell. At $23,500, it’s out of the price range of many small-to-medium-sized businesses, even if the efficiency initiatives eventually pay for themselves. Many companies will likely delay purchasing it (or even leasing it) until prices go down or the economy rebounds. Inventory and equipment orders fell 30 percent in the first quarter of 2009.

Furthermore, businesses are investing more in online document creation. Want a secure business document? There’s Adobe and EDI. Want to share docs with co-workers? Web apps like Google Docs and Zoho do a fine job. Need a hard-copy back-up plan? There are plenty of storage services and external drives. Even law firms are thinking about going the full paperless route. And long-term, the number of gadgets that make digital documents easier to read in transit keeps growing. Bottom line, more color for a better price is great, but only the companies that can afford it will benefit at first.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

By combining the ease of use of Bluetooth tech with the established speed of 802.11, the new Bluetooth protocol increases the multitasking value and compatibility of many devices, and is a good step on the way to the long-promised era of the self-supportive electronics ecosystem. That means that when 3.0-enabled devices are released in 2010, we should expect video cameras, TVs, phones, and PCs with faster, one-button rich-media transfer options.

The ideal example of this vision come to life is that of the passive user leaving a video camera in the living room table to automatically transfer the video to its respective places — storage, media center, PC, and portable. No, 3.0 won’t take it that far, but it’ll bring it closer. Expect fast transfer features to also lead to better productivity from business users (sharing documents during a meeting or on the fly), and as Apple Insider notes, increased savings from electronics makers, which won’t have to build in support for Wi-Fi networking.

Since the most current, mature Bluetooth devices (like phones and headphones) are mobile, expect their next-generation versions to facilitate the merging of the web to TVs through heavy video, music, and communications downloads and services. Want to use Skype with your TV, using your trusty wireless ear piece? Yes, you do. Want to exchange entire music libraries between PMPs within seconds, or even play the same game, at the same time, using different devices? It will be easier through a better Bluetooth connection. Already, companies like Atheros have received certification for 3.0 applications that will help facilitate these data transfers.

If you currently own Bluetooth gadgets, hang onto them. Your earpiece should work with a phone stacked with 3.0 — you just won’t be able to get the high-speed transfers. For larger (and more flexible) hardware like PCs, expect new Bluetooth-enabled peripherals.

Bluetooth 3.0 won’t be the only fast-transfer new tech out there. Wireless USB, as well as Sony’s proprietary TransferJet protocol (expected to come in at a blistering 560 Mbps) will give chase.  Specifications for Ultrawideband (UWB) tech, another fast standard, were recently acquired by SIG and it’s expected to be a part of the follow-up to Bluetooth 3.0.

Follow Jose Fermoso on Twitter at twitter.com/fermoso

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

Set-top boxes (STBs) offering Android-type features are already popping up. Motorola recently launched the open Linux-based ‘au Box,’ with a focus on establishing a stronger bond between video and music content, mobile phones, and the web. The box takes recorded media and transfers it to phones (taking the place of the PC) but the key is that it’s managed by users through the TV and includes a web browsing portal. It’s another small step to acclimate people to the long-awaited union of the web to TV, while ingeniously tapping on the heavy influence of mobiles.

Motorola has denied reports it is working on an Android-based box, but who are they kidding? The reason why some mistakenly thought Motorola’s box was Android was precisely because it fits the profile of something Google would do. It’s a placeholder for what happens next.

Sure, a box that only serves as a middle-manager for media center apps for phones might seem limited, but if you put Android on a TV, it might have far-ranging implications. Let’s take a look.

Because TV is an ad-supported environment and mobile phones are not, Google could finally have a successful TV version of its ad platform. Before the recession, optimistic analysts predicted that a ‘Googlebox’ could bring in huge TV ad revenue, upwards of $130 million a year by 2010. Though the struggling economy has lengthened that timeline, accessing web content through TVs is still the way of the future.

For example, widget web streams that live on a graphic layer at the bottom of a screen are on the verge of mainstream availability. Earlier this year, Yahoo and Intel moved into that space by unveiling an open SDK that helps developers create TV widgets, are customizable enough to open up the personalization of ads, and a umbilical-type connection between STBs like the au Box and users’ phones will push that further.

But Yahoo’s widget program is still just a sliver of the web placed on top of “real” TV programming. The way Android can succeed is by taking the programming infrastructure away from the cable operators and reshaping and enhancing it in the manner of Web 2.0. This means personalized channels, smart virtual machines, short-form social communications (i.e. Twittering), and robust search functions. If you’re watching baseball on TV, you could switch to photo web feeds from people’s cameras at the game and receive their tweets on screen, with a graphic showing GPS coordinates of their stadium location. Creepy, cool, and useful!

Yes, cable operators will resist by fighting for control of any ad platform and will create their own deals with content providers, like they always have. But this is a rare instance where owners of the content pipe might be at a disadvantage. In the last couple of years, a lot of popular TV content has become widely available without monthly subscriptions through web portals like Hulu. Since TV makers are in the middle of a massive downturn and are looking to sell new sets, they’re also bound to help web companies free their TVs from old UI restrictions. Case in point, most top TV makers have already jumped on board with Yahoo’s widgets program. Expect to see similar initiatives at NAB next week.

Android should take note of recent improvements to existing set-top boxes and game consoles, notably TiVo’s new, visually-rich search function, which gives users better show suggestions, and the Wii’s excellent menu, with its 47-channel customizable grid. A better path for Android OS might be to avoid the set-top box altogether and align with a TV manufacturer to create an affordable Google-branded TV. Better yet, Google could build the TV itself through a cheap OEM.

It’s important to note that in its short time (and despite many delays), the G1 phone has been fairly successful and the connection being developed between phones, PCs and the web might have stronger emotional pull for people than TVs in the near future. G1 sold more than a million units in a shorter amount of time than the iPhone. Plus, far more phones are sold throughout the world than TVs. And as we’ve noted previously, the best TVs are being overtaken by cheaper versions of themselves, so it’s not like customers are clamoring for “best-in-class” displays. If they feel a web-TV is more useful and offers the best convergence of  technologies, especially with phones, that’s what they’ll choose.

We think the TV manufacturers probably need the web more than they think they do. They should give Google a call.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

Building apps across different mobile platforms is hard and time-consuming for programmers because each platform has a complex, proprietary language. Objective-C, for example, a language used mainly to write for the iPhone, is known for being significantly different than other, more standard ones. This, especially in a tough economy, often forces small teams to make a choice about which platform they’ll build for, eventually leading to fewer choices for phone consumers and fewer places developers can offer their apps.

But the larger pool of developers out there, who know how to write for standard languages like JavaScript, CSS, and HTML (Ajax), now stand ready to blow this system wide open. They’d do it with the help of PhoneGap, an open-source app platform for which software company Nitobi took home top prize this week at the Web 2.0 conference’s LaunchPad competition. PhoneGap uses the standard web languages to allow programmers to write one code that can work on many different phones. By expanding the reach of apps to more phones, PhoneGap could give developers both a bigger audience and faster outlet on which to test the commercial viability of those apps.

The huge need for a multiple-platform service is only heightened by the recent growth in app store solutions. Just this week, BlackBerry launched its own app store, and Nokia, Palm, and Microsoft are prepping theirs for this year. PhoneGap currently allows developers to work on the iPhone, BlackBerry and Android OS, and will soon work with the others’ systems as well.

Nitobi CEO Andre Charland admitted on stage that using an easier language will not help developers build super-complex apps, like those required for some games, but noted that developers don’t need that level of complexity to build good web apps. PhoneGap actually faces a bigger problem with the growing functionality of mobile browsers, which will allow developers to just write for the web. That’s still a ways off, though.

While PhoneGap is open source, the company won’t give away the invention entirely. Charland said Nitobi plans to sell the tool to large developers through an enterprise license that would promise API stability for up to five years.

Apple, in the meantime, continues to lead the App Store buzz  because developers like its renewed emphasis on outside apps and its more robust store. But if programmers could write for three other phones while working on their iPhone app on a single platform, while other companies begin to enhance their own online stores, the specialness of the Apple App store will dissipate. Only then could developers and their apps be liberated from Apple’s grasp.

According to Nitobi developer Brian Leroux, PhoneGap has history on its side. Developers gravitate towards open source, and previous versions of ‘platform fragmentation’ have been solved by open web tech. This means that hardware makers will need to keep innovating tech specific to their product to offer a different experience. That’s a good thing.

Phone makers are tired of letting Apple take all the credit for bringing apps to the mainstream and customers want access to the apps iPhone customers currently enjoy. If PhoneGap doesn’t work, another company will go for this space to open up the app process. Google has been expected to do this with multiple phones carrying its Android OS, but 18 months since its announcement, only one G-phone has been released. That’s not nearly enough for developers chomping at the bit.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

The Interactive Media Peer Group at the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences announced today that it’s further legitimizing the contribution of online media by changing the status of Interactive Media Finalists to full Emmy nominee status. This might seem like a minor development, but it’s a good step for creators of ARGs and for the millions of fans that want to see further growth in this space. The more recognition interactive media gets, the more new, creative, challenging experiences will pop up and the less content creators will be seen as designated pushers of marketing vehicles.

This positive development is sadly underscored by the fact that there will be only three final nominees this year, as opposed to the five finalists from last year. But they’re still bound to get more recognition this time around, even if they’re hardly noted during the main telecast.

Previously, the Academy announced that any broadband content is also eligible to be nominated for any of the regular prime-time Emmy award categories. According to the rules for the Emmy IMP award, an interactive media nominee is rated according to eight different scores such as user experience, creative achievement, and design/interface. There are fiction and nonfiction categories.

Liz Gannes last year was a judge for the fiction category and found the experience to be fascinating, especially regarding the wide variety of content. NBC.com’s “Heroes Digital Experience” ended up winning the fiction award category she judged.

Any show with relevant media is eligible to be nominated, and show runners must now enter through the updated Emmy site at emmys.tv.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

On the surface, bringing out a $2,000 “fashion” laptop in the middle of a difficult economy may seem like a mistake. Dell’s taken a huge hit financially, and many industry watchers say Dell is especially vulnerable because it receives 80 percent of its revenue from business users. As businesses are moving toward cloud-based computing software, they’re likely to refresh their hardware less often.

Given that, Adamo might look like a product that’s dead on arrival. But that’s a wrong assumption. Two main things will keep it from being a dud: The trend toward design as a major factor in purchases and Dell’s long-term customer loyalty initiatives.

Design is now a key sales differentiator and is an area where old-school companies can catch up. Apple benefits from the company’s obsession with aesthetic austerity, obviously, but even staid Lenovo’s gained attention from customers through beautiful designs (See: the IdeaPad U110) — and there’s no reason Dell can’t do the same.

Adamo’s aluminum unibody design copies Apple’s recent MacBook Pro update, has a super-thin .65-inch body, and its overall metal/glass construction screams futuristic. Having seen it up close in a meeting last week, I’ll say it beats any current ultra-thin in looks. Where older Dell laptops were highly customizable, but bland, the Adamo is only available in Onyx or Pearl and with two spec configurations.

Dell may also be able to parlay its recent high customer service ratings into sales. In the last two years, the company has pushed through an aggressive customer service campaign through forums, and it’s now using Twitter and other social networks to grow customer loyalty further. Dell’s customers are already generally loyal – many people in their 20s and 30s grew up with a cheap Dell laptop and were satisfied with the value; when they’re ready to upgrade to a nicer laptop, they’re more likely to turn to an offering from Dell.

So, how does the Adamo actually stack up? Its 1.2 GHz Core 2 Duo SU9300 loses out to the $2,000 MacBook Air’s 1.86GHz, but it has a 120GB solid state drive (SSD). The Air comes with a skip-prone 120GB SATA hard drive (though you can upgrade to an SSD for an extra $500). Like the Lenovo X300, the Adamo has all standard ports, and its better glass display comes in at about 13.4-inches wide. It is heavier, however, weighing in at 4 lbs. Finally, like the Air, it lacks a standard internal optical drive; adding one will cost you $120.

There’s one thing that could present problems for Dell, and that’s its own success with value-based pricing. The $2,000 Dell Studio XPS 13 may trade down on design, but it offers better features: a 2.66 GHz processor (Intel Core 2 Duo) and a 128 GB  SSD.

But the rise of netbooks has taught us that people are realizing they don’t need the most powerful computer. Mix this with the rising popularity of Apple’s expensive offerings, and it’s becoming clear that at this point in time, those likely to pony up for the Adamo’s price are more likely to pay for the privilege of the design than they are to compare between minimal power differences.

As the middle class is being squeezed, services (or products) are moving toward two price extremes. In this case, it’s ‘best value’ and ‘best designed.’ For consumers in the market for a $1,500 laptop, an extra $500 is chump change, and they probably care about design. For those in the market for a sub-$1,000 laptop, opting for a netbook used with web-based services seems like a  smart move.

Dell may still be the second largest PC maker in the world, but in order to keep up, it needs to fly its design-freak flag high. Because in the near future, design might be one of only two things that matters.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• A 2011 Infrastructure Forecast
• Big Data 2011 Preview

When Google’s Latitude location service launched, one of the main problems users experienced was that the service only located users’ Google contacts — it didn’t include access to the most popular social networks, through which many users connect with friends. Therefore, it was only natural that someone would use Google’s Maps API and build a location service around social networks.

In Real Life (IRL) Connect, based in Amsterdam, opened a private beta this month that allows people to locate their Facebook and Twitter contacts on a map and interact with them on the social network from the map interface. I checked out the service, and my early verdict is that it has potential but maintains the same limitations as other location-based services — mainly, people need to opt-in in order to maximize its usefulness.

IRL Connect features an interesting location UI: Icons showing a user’s location aren’t defined by an avatar, but by their network first. If you have a friend on Twitter, her name will appear in an area above a Twitter icon on a map. When you click on the icon, a balloon-style app will pop out, and that’s where you’ll find her avatar, most recent Tweet, and can message her directly. Because Twitter is an active community, you’re constantly seeing Tweets ‘pop.’

But there’s a problem here. Since most Twitterers haven’t signed on to IRL, the majority of my Twitter friends in San Francisco were sadly trapped in a single icon in one location — the center of San Francisco, as defined by Google (see right). Only by signing on to the service can they release their icon to show an actual location.

Once they’re signed in, the problem isn’t necessarily corrected, either. That’s because IRL Connect doesn’t currently offer real-time Wi-Fi, GPS, or cell ID positioning. Instead, it forces a user to actively enforce locations. Where Google Latitude publicizes and plots your location from your phone (or PC) using signals from nearby cell-phone towers, IRL first locates a user’s position through his IP address. Once logged-in, he can manually position himself by dragging a crosshair icon to his correct location throughout the day. This will turn off some people immediately. But I think think this passive way of keeping location isn’t bad; you don’t have to worry about stalking, and running into your friends is always opt-in.

There are other interesting features, including a left-hand column beside the map that serves as a Tweetdeck of sorts. You can also post different status updates to different social networks and track your friends’ location moves via an “Event” history.

I think attaching itself to big social networks is both a good and bad idea for IRL. For example, the fact it makes good use of Facebook’s existing data means it doesn’t have to deal with privacy settings; you can already limit your contacts there. But it indicates future competition from the social network behemoth — there’s no question it will make larger companies realize that a map addition to their network is a good idea. In the meantime, we look forward to seeing future updates to this data map-hack.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• A 2011 Connected Consumer Forecast
• A 2011 NewNet Forecast

Today, Flurry has unveiled an update to its free analytics service that adds user path (flow) tracking and “dynamic parameter” settings, both aimed at helping developers better understand detailed user-generated actions. If a developer builds an app that includes a search engine, for example, integration with Flurry will allow her to know every word entered and when, and which of them are the most popular. In this way, it’s similar to web analytics’ “click streams.” And just like it, the program creates easy-to-read charts of this data that can be used to evaluate key structural app trends.

But unlike other analytics programs, Flurry’s can also be customized throughout the development process. And the fact that Flurry works across platforms, with services for the iPhone, Android, BlackBerry and Java ME means developers no longer have to spend time measuring the differences among them. For Java, Flurry promises analytics app integration within 30 seconds -– though that seems too fast to be believed.

As Flurry V-P Peter Farago noted in an email, when it comes to analytics, web and mobile are not the same: “Web sites are always on, so analytics are measured live. [Mobile apps, on the other hand], are on/off, cell phones are on/off, [are] roaming, reachable/not reachable.” But he maintains it’s a challenge Flurry has not only solved but is built to understand.

For developers, using this tool correctly can lead to increased app retention rates and help them grow their user base. But part of the reason why the mobile analytics space is so interesting is because it has the potential to soon grow beyond those features.

For example, offerings from Flurry and its competitors could bring about new revenue models to two big areas due for growth in mobile, ads and Flash-based games. While Flurry has put off enabling in-application advertising for now, the potential revenues from a well-realized Google Analytics/Adwords model are too great not to try. Big web analytics companies seem to realize this, and both Omniture and Google have started offering their own mobile services for developers, with varying levels of success and accuracy.

Development for Flash-based mobile apps for widgets and games is also growing fast, and improved user analysis will be key in developing more responsive games for users. In the past, developers haven’t had much access to accurate, detailed information of people’s flash and game interactions as Flash web apps have always taken a back seat to the easier-to-analyze HTTP tracking. (Google changed all that in the web analytics space a few years ago.) Farago noted in our interview that a couple of other features are likely to emerge as important: benchmark analysis within categories (such as, How successful are asteroid games in relation to other shooting games?), and CRM data accumulation for user data mining.

Flurry’s announcement today and its knowledge of the mobile market means it is slowly developing a strong feature set that will be competitive and continue to grow. But expect that eventually Google and Omniture will figure out how to port their strong web analytics offerings down to mobile, giving Flurry a good run for their future money.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

One of Hulu’s biggest breakthroughs was the simplicity of its UI, but after playing with it, there’s no question MyMediaPlayer is a more visually appealing option for finding content. Created by independent developer Paul Yanez (previous coverage), the app takes Hulu’s open RSS feed, with 400 TV shows and 208 movies, and re-sizes them to a logo thumbnail grid view. When you pick a TV show, other episodes are listed below in shorter form, and are also available in classic media center form (see above). Starting yesterday, it’s also packed with Twitter integration, for mid-movie tweets.

In an open letter, Yanez outlined the reasons why Hulu should reconsider the consistent rejection of his player, essentially saying: I’m making your site better so that others can appreciate it as much as I do. So why aren’t you letting us do that? The answer: Hulu — a joint venture between NBC Universal and News Corp — is understandably spooked by the prospect of getting too successful too quickly, possibly killing off network revenue in an economic climate in which the TV ad market is floundering. That’s why cable companies are looking to act as content aggregators . But crippling useful apps makes little sense.

Hulu’s recent split from Boxee is another example. Boxee software streams media from PCs to TVs; Hulu’s bosses essentially objected to it on grounds it wasn’t the primary mode of consumption they allowed. But their fear that video content will replace TV is already outdated because their stop-gap is easily circumvented. For example, I use a large projector to watch Hulu, and anyone can just plug their laptop to their HDTVs. The only thing hampering this full-blown shift is consumer awareness, not a difference between browser UI quality and media centers.

Hulu should allow apps. After all, we know that Net-based content grows in popularity when users have more options to access content. Bricking useful add-ons alienates people. Twitter didn’t stop ‘outside’ clients like TweetDeck or Summize; its creators understood that apps improved Twitter by giving people different access points to express their thoughts and keep up with others.

I understand Twitter’s main content providers are users and Hulu’s are studios that pay large fees to create original content, but that’s a different fight altogether. Conditional apps that add to a web site without hurting the bottom line should be treated better by these companies if they don’t want to lose out to a competitor. TV.com anyone?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A 2011 Connected Consumer Forecast
• Connected Consumer Q4: New Platforms and OTT’s Dynamic Duo Dominated
• Report: A Global Mobile Video Forecast, 2011 – 2015

Phone recalls are not common, but connection problems are more than a blue-moon nuisance, as Om recently noted when he quit his iPhone due to At&T’s service. This recall is a reminder that we need better communications standards and oversight on safety features from both phone manufacturers and telecoms.

Released last year, the LG 830 is a phone whose best feature is the use of a dual slider keypad and a responsive touch screen. It has GPS, EV-DO, and most reviews noted its good voice quality. A software error in versions T83LGV03 and T83LGV04 caused the problems that led to the recall, LG told us via email, adding that the issue “does not pertain to LG 830 models on the US Cellular or Alltel networks.” But more than six hours after the CPSC issued the recall, LG had not posted anything about it on the public notice page on its web site, nor had it issued a press release, and most of its customer service operators, when we called to confirm the recall, had no idea about this issue. (A few weeks ago, LG’s Canadian division was ordered to recall 250,000 LG 150 phones due to radiation concerns.)

We’re often blinded by the next great media-centered feature set and fail to demand the most basic but important functions, like improved security monitoring systems. Of course, it doesn’t help when certain government agencies fail to push stronger standards, such as two years ago, when a study that showed E-911 services were not as reliable as expected was dumped by the FCC for no apparent reason.

Granted, there are other issues that hamper emergency lines, like network coverage density. Regardless, we need greater transparency and more efficient forms of communication between companies and their customers. For example, there was no immediate Twitter announcement from the company and no gentle-but-insistent flash on the product’s page.

This needs to change, because next time, someone might actually get hurt.

– Follow Jose Fermoso on Twitter at twitter.com/fermoso

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

This move signals the end of Motorola’s attempt to build a business-specific phone to compete with RIM’s Blackberry (RIMM) and Palm. To some, this is an admission of failure, a sign the company is down for good, but I think a renewed focus on media features, good design, and a new OS could propel Motorola back to a respectable position.

Good Technology’s software, also used by Palm and Nokia, was supposed to juice Moto’s business ambitions. But bad UI design, lack of innovations, and a market quickly moving from enterprise phones to media-focused options made the venture fall. When the economy plunged, Motorola looked to split into two, and reported massive losses.

Its business phones were not bad — both the MC35 and the Q had fine features, like fast data syncing and EVDO connection for adequate browsing — but they never had the reliable simplicity of the BlackBerry or the app set of the Palm phones. By focusing on the business side, Motorola forgot how it first became successful: with attractive media-based phones. The company sold 50 million RAZRs, thanks to its light weight, sexiness, and Bluetooth compatibility. For many, the RAZR was the first camera phone they used consistently.

Delving into business enterprise became a worse idea when the iPhone proved it could bring complex web apps to mainstream portables. Suddenly, web mail was easily accessible and businesses started trusting them. Yes, the increasingly robust security of popular media phones cut into the BlackBerry and Palm but they maintained their lead by integrating the popular consumer-based web apps.

In the last few years, Motorola’s dismally uninspired non-business offerings paled in comparison to the competition’s feature for feature and failed to modernize the brand. The Ve20 and the Z10 looked and performed like clones of old phones, and halfhearted attempts at new tech (like touch interfaces) were glitchy and embarrassing.

If Motorola wants to survive, it needs to humble itself to play the part of the “hardware pipe.” It’s become obvious that the content flowing through that pipe will be managed by a quality OS, from Android to Microsoft’s new WinMo. Motorola said today that is exactly what it will do.

Already, Motorola is showing signs of life. Leaked photos of the 2009 line-up show a big change in industrial design, with sharp angles and a commitment to responsive touchscreens.

Now, it will be up to the consumers to decide if they want Motorola back.

Images: Girl kissing phone courtesy of circo de invierno via Flickr; phone via Boy Genius Report.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Transient Apps: The Consumer Influence on Enterprise Mobility, Part 2
• Mobile Overview, Q2 2010

Last week, Pioneer announced it was killing off its critically acclaimed TV business by March 2010 and will concentrate on car and audio/visual systems. It was a dramatic fall for a company that just one year ago had CES abuzz with its newest plasma TV, the so-called “Ultimate Black” Kuro.

The Kuro’s tech was impressive because it reduced light emissions from black areas of the screen to such a degree that at its maximum brightness, the contrast ratio was “almost infinite.” The result was a plasma display with the most vibrant, colorful images yet.

But even at the hype’s peak, problems in the plasma industry were apparent.

Plasmas were at their most popular from 2004 to 2006, a period that saw them overtake rear-projection TVs as the top big-TV format. But they had a tough time offsetting their lowest average prices with high sale volumes. The spectre of LCDs also prompted many customers to hold off on making a purchase. By February ’08, soon after the recession had officially taken hold, premium-quality Pioneers seemed out of touch. Most critically, LCDs were sporting features long the domain of plasma: bigger screens, greater contrast ratios, thinner and cheaper sets. LCD picture quality still failed to reach plasma levels, but to average consumers, the difference was no longer obvious.

Fast-forward to the start of 2009, and LCDs were outselling plasmas 8-to-1 globally, and the dominating the best-selling lists on Amazon.com.

Pioneer tried a last-ditch partnership with Panasonic to create a version of its plasma TVs, contributing its own “secret sauce” to keep the Kuro tech flowing, but that effort appears to be over.

The slumping demand is already having consequences: Projected losses of $1.41 billion in 2008-09 (following a loss of $203 million in 2007-08) and a nearly 50 percent drop in operating revenue have set the scene for 10,000 jobs cuts and the closing of U.S., UK and Japanese facilities. But Pioneer’s not the only TV maker suffering. They’re all taking it on the chin, regardless of display type.

Both Hitachi andVizio had to end the bleeding by shuttering plasmas to concentrate on LCDs. And not even the usually flush holiday period buoyed TV companies to a safe financial landing: Sony, Panasonic, and LG all posted lower quarterly profits.

Component suppliers have similarly been unable to escape the pain. As Om noted in recent posts, screen manufacturer Corning posted fourth-quarter 2008 revenues of $1.1 billion and still had to let go of 3,500 jobs.

Pioneer’s decision to end its plasma production was more complicated. It bought out NEC’s plasma business in 2004, used it as an OEM for its glass, but was recently forced to shutter the unit. Now, the only plasma manufacturers left standing are Panasonic, LG, and Samsung, all of which make their own components.

Panasonic is in good position to benefit from Kuro’s death. Most of the Pioneer engineers who came up with Kuro switched sides and are now working for Panasonic. In addition, recent demos have shown that Panasonic plasmas are nearing Kuro quality. Already in possession of the biggest plasma market share in the world (at more than 35 percent), the company will be able to build a diversified product line using plasma TVs as a premium screen type that appeals to a niche that still wants them.  Add to that the fact that it receives significant revenues from selling its glass to other companies, including JVC and Fujitsu, and it appears that it’ll be able to keep plasmas afloat longer than any other company. Panasonic will inherit the burdens of the difficult economy and the LCD challenge, but once plasma is no longer economically feasible, its own LCDs will have likely caught up in picture quality. In fact, ultimate black contrast tech is already getting closer to LCDs.  So it’s only a matter of a few years (maybe even less) before plasmas finally die out.

As for Pioneer, not all is lost. Reps say that the plasma TVs only accounted for 14 percent of its business worldwide, and patents for the Kuro technology will provide a profit for awhile. But any positives are bittersweet. The legacy of the Kuro TV will be that it was another best-in-class technology that was humbled by the force of the economy and the competitive market.

– Follow Jose Fermoso on Twitter at twitter.com/fermoso

RELATED STORIES:

• TVs Transform at This Year’s CES
• Show of Hands: Gestures Control Hitachi TV
• TV Shipments, Revenues to Drop in ’09

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

The BPL enterprise between IBM and IBEC this week identified where they’ll start delivering these services. Since the Department of Ag already gave $77 million in loans last year, it’s likely to give more, as minimum speeds weren’t written into the stimulus bill. As we’ve noted previously, the viability of BPL as a web service was debunked years ago and should have died quietly. Here’s why:

• Power lines weren’t built to carry BPL frequencies or broadband data. Broadband experts have noted that high-speed data needs an ample amount of bandwidth, and power lines, which work best at 60 Hz, are not enough. One current deployment of BPL is pushing data at only 256kbps. That’s not progress.

• BPL interferes with emergency radio. And power lines are unreliable; a simple fault in a conductor could cut off all data.

• BPL won’t be free for rural communities. IBM has floated BPL pricing plans starting at $30 a month, which isn’t too different from those of cable companies, which offer much higher speeds.

• Supporters focus on BPL’s ‘communications backbone‘ role in a smart grid, but wireless tech offers less expensive — and faster — solutions. Burbank, Calif., recently chose Wi-Fi over BPL for similar reasons.

Despite this, BPL has been continually resurrected by the FCC. Despite complaints that the tech was not viable commercially and that it altered the “rights of radio licensees,” the agency approved it. (A U.S. Court of Appeals last year said the FCC did not give a “reasoned explanation” for its sole use of positive BPL studies. )

Federal politics aside, BPL is no step forward for the rural customers who need broadband access. Any new dollars spent on it would be better served funding new wireless applications that are more viable for the future.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce