To no one’s surprise, Microsoft will be releasing its own line of tablets, called Surface, and, while its tablet cover/keyboard is a pretty darn cool spin on things, I am not sure how the actual tablet will do. My issue with tablets is that Apple has, for all intents and purposes, done so well on its first go-around that the iPad has become synonymous with the category. The same can be said for the likes of Thermos or Kleenex, the brands so engrained in the markets their brand is often interchanged as the product itself.

So far, some manufacturers have tried their hand in the tablet market, but they seem to fight over the scraps and never make up ground against Apple. So far, there has been Sony, Samsung, Amazon, Dell and a few others. Some of them are better suited and have more brand permission releasing a tablet than Microsoft.

The tablet comes at a time when Microsoft is making some nice strides that can set it apart. It new Smart Glass is one of those things. It is fresh and, with additional “like” offerings, Microsoft is setting a foundation on which it can create a rebranded image for the company.

Tablets, however, are another story. This late in the game, you aren’t seen as being terribly innovative if you come out with only slight modifications (especially by one considered to be a software manufacturer that often makes things complex or, to be snarky, came out with Zune). You have to defend your product against an overwhelming category leader that has the best brand in the industry (in the world, really).

For Microsoft, there is some opportunity in the tablet market if it can find the highest emotional intensity and align itself with it it to give consumers the switching trigger they need to make the jump. Unfortunately, I think the market leader already has it.

There are a lot of things I see Microsoft doing that feel right, but tablets feel wrong. To regain some of the clout, it needs a game-changer.

Even though there are aspects if it that are cool, this ain’t it.

There are many signs that a company doesn’t know what it is doing with its brand, but one is a lack of willingness to let things go that are not working. While this might seem like simply an operational decision, predicated by a steadily declining financial sheet, it is actually one connected to brand. Often, what often performs poorly financially is also not correctly aligned with a brand strategy. They work hand in hand, which means by living to your brand promise, you can make the right decision on what products to keep and which ones to lose.

If you consider brands that are struggling lately (Sony, Best Buy), it is part and parcel to the fact that they lose sight of the brand. For instance, consider Sony, which has a hand in about every possible tech pot it can. From TVs to MP3 players, to Ereaders to tablets, to alarm clocks to cameras to laptops, Sony has just about everything. There might be some products that ring resoundingly clear to its themeline of “Make. Believe,” but the ones that are not ringing true take with it some of the clout that other products might deserve.  The Walkman might have still be bringing in dollars to Sony, but why did it take so long for it to pull old technology that detracted from the power and meaning of its brand?

Or take Best Buy, which has created a store that offers product solutions to satisfy an oven customer and a CD customer (whoever that is, anymore), providing less meaning to the whole group rather than more intensive meaning to a smaller group. What you sell and your willingness to scrap what is not in synch is an important part of staying relevant and resonant.

Clarity of message is not simply dependent upon the message itself, but how it is made real to the customer. Sony’s “Make. Believe” could have a real profound effect on the market if it meant a culture shift within Sony. Imagine the impact drawing a line in the sand and saying “from this point forward, absolutely nothing we do will be ordinary” might have. No more AM/FM alarm clocks, no more set-top boxes, no more DVD players, Only products that were true to “Make. Believe.”

There is a reason Ping is set to vanish from Apple’s repertoire. Its social network-angle was never about “Think Different” and has become more of a hindrance to its brand then a help. A brand is constantly being examined critically by potential customers looking for a meaningful connection to their purchase. Make it easy for them and get rid of the clutter.

Since the first time I watched the NCAA basketball tournament using streaming services, my selfishness has pined for the day when the rest of television makes the same transition. The simplicity of signing on and watching, without a contract, a high bill and still in HD, has made me wonder, when will the change happen universally?

HBO Go is a good example of this, bridging the divide between streaming and cable, while not currently committing to fully streaming without being a cable subscriber anytime in the future. My only hope for a more simplistic future where I choose only the channels I want rests in Apple or another company with enough brand permission to allow for such a drastic change.

Brand permission dictates what the customer is willing to believe about the claims a brand makes. Tablets, for example, seemed like a long shot at catching on initially. (They didn’t replace a phone or a computer, but instead added a new category.) Not everyone could have pulled it off, but Apple had the brand preference as well as the brand permission to prop up the category and facilitate the transition. It was a big idea and far away from the status quo, which is what Apple represents.

So this is my plea to the Apples of the world. “Please do something about cable.”

My second plea is to those without the brand permission for it. “Please don’t do anything about cable. In fact, stay away.” For change to happen, it must be an unavoidable wave of change. And it must be believable.

Until this change is tackled by a brand with adequate permission, the inertia of rest will continue, and I will have to keep using Time Warner Cable. Sigh.

The gaming industry seems to be split up into two audiences: The serious gamers and those of us who play on less intensive platforms such as an iPad where Angry Birds and Plants vs. Zombies is enough to give you your fix.

Bridging those two audiences is a delicate achievement and is fraught with potential failure if your attempt is simply to copy what others are doing. Nintendo is in that spot, especially when it comes to its upcoming Wii U system.

Just ask yourself this: If you had an iPad in one hand and the Wii U in the other, which one would you choose? This is the position Nintendo is steering its new game console toward. Gaming on consoles and gaming on tablets, however, are different beasts with two different audiences.

If you ask most people who play videogames, they do not confuse blockbuster console games with the arcade style mini games the iPad has made popular. There are certainly markets for both, but they are not the same. Pricing structure is different, required resources are different, marketing is different, user interaction is different, and visuals are different. Most of all, the complexity is different. The audiences for these are serious about gaming. The audiences for the iPad games usually aren’t.

Nintendo is also considering a new social network it calls Wiiverse. The problem is that the market has already demonstrated that people don’t want more than one social network. Just look at Google+, Ping, or MySpace. I greatly doubt if people looking for consolidation of their social network experience would choose Wiiverse in place of Facebook.

Nintendo’s system will still make a splash. It has enough loyal fans that will want their exclusive titles. But its attempt to create “broad appeal” is not the most competitive approach, not when competitors within each specific market are doing “specific” very well.

I expected more from Nintendo. It needs to think again like a true innovator, then wii-ed like to play.

T-mobile’s spokes-girl has stepped out of the pink dress and into black leather. The subtext of this T-mobile is not going to play nice anymore. Which going by the old saying “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” this is a huge switch from the oh-so-similar nature of previous T-mobile ads that had the same look as the classic Mac versus PC ads. Yes, considering that homage, I would say stepping up your game with a fresh concept is a good idea.

If only T-mobile weren’t going about it all wrong.

This recent T-mobile ad is set on a desert road. The voice over identifies a motorcycle rider driving on that road with an iPhone on the AT&T’s 4G network. Past him blows the T-mobile gal who the voiceover identifies as T-mobile 4G. They do a bit of rewind and replay in slow motion to work in some humor where T-mobile glances at the slow AT&T as she passes – then off she zooms.

The big problem with the ad is it is introducing unnecessary variables. The ad is meant to show off T-mobile’s fast 4G. Comparing AT&T 4G and T-mobile 4G by itself might create value for T-mobile. But T-mobile pairs its value against two variables – AT&T’s 4G and the iPhone. T-mobile is, in essence, making the assumption that the value of its fast 4G connection is more valuable than the brand of Apple and its iPhone – not a great tactic.

Speed is valuable in the mobile market, but it’s hard to figure out the differences between carriers. If T-mobile could be more single-minded in that effort, without confusing audiences by including the iPhone (which, recent reports say, will be coming to T-mobie), it can take the lead on a future table stake (that will provide value until the other networks increase their speed to the equivalent). But it must be single minded in that focus and not bite off more than it can chew.

Right now, the ad acts as a reminder to those who want an iPhone that they better not switch to T-mobile. That, for much of the population, the iPhone is more important than a possibly faster data connection.

Good news for all you Sony tablet oglers out there who just couldn’t bring yourself to make the purchase because its pricing was just too high: Sony just announced that it is dropping its price on its Android-based tablet base unit from $499 down to $399.

The misconception by many manufacturers releasing tablets priced at $499 is that consumers are willing to spend that $499 on a tablet since they purchase iPads so readily. This however is not true. Consumers are, in fact, willing to pay $499 for a tablet from Apple. Another tablet and an Apple tablet are not the same. With the latter, you have the ability to charge a premium because it matches a premium brand.

This pricing issue is not a first for Sony. The pricing teams still believe in the equity and clout its brand once carried, even though consumers don’t. From the P3S to the recently released Vita to its tablet to the upcoming release of its personal 3D viewer, Sony believes its brand justifies the premium pricing. It is not until sales figures begin rolling in and the over-forecasting of consumer interest becomes apparent that Sony’s prices find a more realistic level.

Big news from Sony at the 2011 E3 was a new “affordable” 3D television priced at $499. Now, a few months on the market, and it is regularly priced at retail stores for $399 and as low as $299 leading up to the holiday.

The point here is that only premium brands can justify premium prices. The power of a meaningful brand is that consumers will pay more for it and even inconvenience themselves for it. The fact that you are overpriced only becomes that much more apparent when the power of the brand doesn’t match it.

All hope for Sony is not lost. It just needs to get back in touch with the highest emotional intensities that exist in the market. Until then, expect more disappointing sales figures – and dropping prices.

Let me start off by saying that I am a huge technology buff. If it has buttons, I want to press them. If it has a better screen, I want to see it. If it is new and costs a premium to be the first one to own it, I’ll sell some blood to cover the cost of being an early adaptor.

Because of this interest, I like the patent system. If everyone simply followed the same formula, competitive products would become rote. New ways to do things is what promotes innovation, and I believe patents help to stimulate that. But with most everything that is good, it must come in moderation. This is where my interest in electronics and positive outlook of patents begin to diverge.

Patents are for new creations, even game changers. Nowadays, however, companies file patents like crazy and buy up companies that are worth little to no value simply for their stockpile of patents. It all adds up to, in the longterm, create an industry that takes something that helps stimulate innovations but instead uses it to slow it.

Bringing me to Apple, which just won a patent lawsuit against HTC over a feature that converts incoming messages into highlighted, underlined links for phone numbers, names, etc. Sure, this does perform a task, but to what degree should we assign it genuine, distinguishable, game-changing value? Take for instance the ability to cut and paste within a document. Yes, it also “does” something, but what if only one interface allowed cutting and pasting, and all others were blocked from using it? There are things that companies should protect vigorously. But there are also others, especially within the tech industry, that should be considered contributions to help move the industry forward.

My biggest problem is that these lawsuits can be counter productive. Look at lawsuits against surgeons and the effect it has on medical costs. Lawsuits are a drain, and often result in a negative outcome even if a lawsuit is successful. I think about this Apple win and ask myself, what could Apple have created if it put the costs associated with litigation (direct dollars, man hours, brainpower) towards new innovations. There is a cost-benefit for everything, and the cost associated with continual patent lawsuits just seems a bit greater.

Winner or loser, patent lawsuits do little to help a brand. If you ask an Apple customer why he or she chose an Apple product, I promise you the amount of times someone replies, “They have great patents,” would be nil. It is the same reason why generics exist but are not the market leaders, even though they share the exact same ingredients as their brand name counterparts.

So, to Apple I say, don’t waste time and resources trying to force competitors out of the market with patents. Do what you do best, and put it all into continually making great, simple, intuitive products and consumers will push out the competition for you.

The world of television is changing. It’s evolving as rapidly as the music, book and video industries. This evolution has brought Blockbuster Video to the doldrums and Hollywood Video to the wayside. Today, what we covet most is the simplicity of plugging in, downloading and playing in seconds. From eReaders to Apple TVs, today’s technology is saving us time and bringing the entertainment world directly to our fingertips. The pageant of technology has indeed found its home in the heart of our living rooms.

So, when news recently broke that Boxee has developed a live TV dongle that attaches to its external Boxee interface, I couldn’t help but think Boxee is on the right track with its thinking.

What does the Boxee dongle possibly mean? Cable TV may soon run the same course as Blockbuster or Hollywood Video. Consider this: many of my friends have already completely cancelled their cable subscriptions because they have grown tired of the exorbitant bills and endless array of painfully boring channels. In turn, many have bought rabbit ear antennas for their HD TV, which enables them to get about 20-25 major network television stations, all in hi-def, and for free. What’s more, most couple their antenna use with a Netflix and Hulu subscription, which runs the gamut of their diverse viewing needs. All said, the experience is affordable and of superior quality.

That said, Boxee’s CEO, Avner Ronen seems in tune with his brand and what people desire when it comes to television:

“People have avoided completely cutting the cable TV cord because Internet-based content does not usually include sports, local news, special events, and live TV shows like Dancing with the Stars. But these things are all available on broadcast TV channels like ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC for free, over the air in HD. With Boxee Live TV you can watch them all on your Boxee Box (and still get all the regular Boxee stuff you love to watch too).”

In other words, Ronen’s company is helping to make our viewing experience simple and effective (which is just what we want). Through Boxee’s interface, we can stream Netflix and Hulu. But with the dongle, we can now get the live TV we still wish for (which means live sporting events are a viable option). Everything we want in one affordable place, which is really is bad news for a cable TV industry that has waited too long to make the proper adjustments.

Whether Boxee’s new dongle proves to be a breakthrough for live TV viewing and, ultimately, the end of cable bills still remains unseen. Boxee’s finger is clearly on the pulse of what we want. Whether Boxee succeeds or not, the idea is out of the bag, and it is surely easy to envision a live Apple, Amazon or Google TV, much like the Boxee dongle, on the horizon.

Even in the wake of Steve Jobs’ death and speculation that Apple could run into trouble with him gone — the boldness of the Apple’s brand continues to astound me.

Today, Apple’s iPhone 4S hit the stores. Yet, before I talk about the importance of it’s release, I should probably share my initial perception of the phone.

Personally, the iPhone 4S seemed (and still does) to be a bit of a letdown. After months of extreme anticipation and speculation, my expectations were certainly not met. My hope — a sleek new design with maybe a larger screen, easier typing capabilities and much of the wonderful little stuff that Apple does so well.

Instead, we were given the slightly older brother of the iPhone 4 (which is a great piece of machinery). Sure, a new camera with better resolution is great and video in full HD is sweet too, but none of this quite made me salivate as does nearly every other release that comes from my favorite company.

Truthfully, it all just seemed a little ho-hum to me. And even now, I feel like I could hold out from buying the iPhone 4S and just wait until the iPhone 5 is released.

Here’s the irony in it all. It turns out that maybe I am alone in my thinking. What’s more, maybe Apple’s brand is even stronger than I had ever imagined. They are already reporting that their initial stock of iPhone’s has completely sold out. Pictures have been released of massive crowds eagerly awaiting their new phone — with the anticipation of a child at Christmas.

So it made me think, Apple’s brand may just be stronger than ever. I can’t help but wonder, as I see both passionate employees and customers waiting outside of Apple stores nationwide, that Apple is still the visionary company that we all knew it was. Yet also, and here’s the surprising part, I believe Apple has now also taken on the role of the underdog — an underdog the masses are rooting for. This position in the marketplace is nothing short of amazing.

Think about it. With Steve gone, Apple lost their visionary; their magician — but their faithful never let go of that magic. Customers still want to believe in Apple (I surely do). It’s why record setting droves of customers are waiting in lines for a less than adequate iPhone 4S.

And so it seems like Apple may just be holding all of the cards. As it is the company leading the competition, but is also that very same company that everyone wants to succeed and make it through these tough times.

If the iPhone 4S is any indication, it most certainly will.

Looking at different markets, the bare minimum needed to compete varies. Sometimes, the minimum can be efficacy or FDA approval in the medical community, for example, or it might mean providing ample battery capacity for mobile electronics. They are all aspects that are not optional to compete but, if you are looking for a long-term presence, are required. Sadly for Sprint, the market of wireless providers has one of the most expensive table stakes– the iPhone.

Sprint just announced it will be purchasing 30.5 million iPhones over the next four years, a commitment to the tune of $20 billion. While Sprint’s stock has been taking a hit for this recent move, my response to those selling their Sprint stock is that, to compete, this was something Sprint needed to do.

Brand messaging is vital, even concerning table stakes. By the same token, while brand provides the reason “why” a company does everything, actions must reinforce that “why” and fulfill the brand promise or the brand becomes meaningless. What also muddies that “why” is when the brand fails to meet the bare minimum to compete in that market.

The iPhone only on AT&T was a differentiator. But once Verizon began to carry it, all the equity AT&T held was lost and it moved from a differentiator to a table stake.

Under these circumstances, I would say that Sprint has made a correct move by including the iPhone in its portfolio. The playing field is now level and Sprint is in a position to seize that opportunity using brand messaging that is meaningful and says why it has the iPhone.

Competing to increase market share through monthly minutes allowed or by data packages offered is short-term strategy. Now, while differentiators are for the most part flat in this market, is the time for Sprint to build preference by saying something emotionally resonate about the “why.”