Apple just came off of a smoking hot quarter, but now everyone is thinking what the future holds for the technology juggernaut. There are talks about the obvious- iPhone 5 and iPad 3, then there are talks about new Macbooks, and lastly talks about Apple’s physical TV set or iTV as I like to think of it.

I’ve been meaning to comment on it for awhile now, but what better time to discuss the potential of iTV than now?

It’s obvious that Apple won’t just put out a tv set to say they have one and compete against the dominant players like Samsung and Sony in the space. Knowing the Apple we know, they’ll put out something truly unique and disruptive to say the least, to which all of our jaws will drop to the floor.

So what do I think the key features of iTV will be? Here’s what I think:

• iTunes will be integrated
• You will be able to download apps on it
• You will have an a la carte style of programming selection (more below)
• The tv itself will come with hard disk space (or flash memory) to record shows, which will eliminate the need for a separate DVR
• Ability to use your iPhone/iTouch/iPad for the remote

I’m sure there will be more features than I mentioned and while some of the listed features are probably obvious, the one thing I’m really betting Apple will introduce is a la carte programming.

For years, television programming has never changed. Either you have cable, satellite, or something free over the air. Now we have options like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon prime, etc- but those don’t count.

I have a feeling that Apple will introduce a way to subscribe to individual channels for individual subscription costs. Meaning if you want to watch ESPN, CNBC, and CNN for example, you pay for only those channels through iTunes or something connected to the iWorld. Americans pay a lot for cable or satellite and yet we only watch a small handful of the hundreds of channels we pay for. What a waste- it’s like buying dinner for 4 when all you are feeding is yourself. Why pay $40, $60, $100 or more per month for things you don’t even care for? Instead why not pay for individual subscriptions say $1.99, $2.99 or even $4.99 per month, depending on the channel? Imagine the subscriptions for a middle aged businessman versus a young high schooler versus a grandmother. The options are limitless.

I think Apple would have introduced the iTV by now, if they could get these content deals in place, but the major thing holding up the announcement of the iTV is probably structuring these deals. I’ve heard of reports saying they’ve been working on the iTV for multiple years and unless they’re making a tv set that projects a virtual hologram, I don’t think the technology would take them “years” to refine.

Just think about it for a minute, “cutting the cord,” all the hype in the media these days, but actually doing it with the sense that you are saving money and only paying for what you want. A nice clean bill for your favorite network of channels.

Think about the cash flow from something like this. Suits everything they’ve done in the past. Reoccurring revenue from iTunes after you buy an iPod, reoccurring revenue from the App store once you buy an iPad, a cut from all cellular plans once you buy a subsidized iPhone.

I made an interesting comment among my group of friends recently, stating my opinion of Apple being the first company ever that will reach a trillion dollar market cap. I guess we can start by taking Comcast’s and Time Warner’s and give Apple another $94B to pad that $414B as of writing this article. Maybe add a little Sony dollars in the mix. :)

Sounds like an Apple kind of thing to me. Of course, this is all my opinion and it’s not like I spoke to Steve Wozniak about it.

As many of you know, I’m a huge fan of privacy online and services that not only enable it, but make it an essential part of their business. Path is a service that allows people to create a mobile social network, with restrictions of having 150 friends maximum for each user.

Path’s raised some capital from some all star investors and is founded by Dave Morin, who is a Facebook and Apple alum, but the key work history is from Facebook since he was the 30th- or so employee there.

As far as some history for the company itself, their version 1.0 product was a non-catchy utter disaster even though the concept was awesome. Privatizing social interactions through any social networking service is a must if the company wants to expand the service and create a sustainable product, in my opinion. The largest problem with the first version was that people just didn’t catch on. Often times since the service is private, you don’t get the Twitter effect, where there are just random people that befriend you and the service just takes off like a rocket ship. Some examples would be YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, so on and so forth.

Path took another go at the product, released a new version and people seemed to catch on. This time they focused on expressing the service as a journal instead of a network. At the core, the product may be identical to the first version, however the product uplift gave users a reason to give it another go. This time people seem to be sticking to the product since Dave mentioned there’s at least a 30x more sharing rate than before, on this brutally honest and insightful interview with JCal from ThisWeekIn.

Now that I’ve layed out some of the backstory for you, I want to explain to you why Path needs to make web an equal focus to mobile.

With any social service, a product doesn’t work (private or public) if there is no social. Mobile is great, but people still spend time on computers all day long. Put these together and web is hole that Path should fix, very soon. If the service doesn’t pick up within families or friend circles beyond technologists, then it won’t be dethroning Facebook. If it does, it will dethrone Facebook. The only way I see Path being a stage 5 threat to Facebook is if Path does the web. Path has done mobile very beautifully, and there is no doubt they can execute the web just as great- and people will come if they do.

If you think about your Facebook stream today, don’t you hate seeing updates from people whom you barely know, or worse off, people you just added because you met them for five minutes once and they added you? Yes of course, which is why Facebook added the unsubscribe button. But the biggest problem is Facebook has botched its privacy functionality multiple times, even savvy technology minded geeks cannot figure it out half the time. I’m not taking a jab at Facebook, they’ve just grown very big and it’s too late to turn back and tell people the friend limit of 5000 is being reduced to 500 or even 150. You usually don’t try to make a 20 year old car compete with the latest models, instead just buy a new model and learn what it has to offer. If you think about it social networks are the same way, people will switch if there is a viable alternative that is better looking and offers more functionality. But the but here and it’s a huge but- is that Path needs to create the web because it will have to drive more than 1 or 2 people from everyones’ friend circles in order to create a movement around their service. Not everyone has a mobile device like an iPhone and many just don’t care to be using the device for other than work even if they do. Having a web destination for when people do want to be social addresses this.

The fact is people want privacy and limitations on who can see things they post online, and Path is great for it. Why did people give G+ a try? Ask your friends, if they still use it. I’ve heard many people complain that it was creepy because random people added them to circles, forcing them to delete their profiles. People want an alternative to Facebook and the way I see it, Path can really capitalize on this vulnerability right now.

I will end this post here, even though I could write a ton more on Path and the future with this: I believe Path can be worth billions of they build a web destination.

If you don’t know who Elon Musk is, you will. Not because I’m going to tell you right now, but because he will become the next greatest mind the world is swept by. DISCLAIMER: Elon Musk is one of my favorite entrepreneurs of all time.

Elon Musk has done a lot of things, started PayPal, started SpaceX, started Tesla Motors, and a few other not so well known companies. The thing that amazes me about Elon is not that he has started a half a dozen companies, but because he strives to tackle huge issues. 

There are a lot of great entrepreneurs in the world, in all different industries, but you can’t say that many are addressing huge issues that impact all humans on the planet. Elon has a very brilliant mind and I think his legacy will be bigger than Steve Jobs.

Steve Jobs changed technology as we knew it, and Elon Musk is changing the automotive industry as we know it. There are many companies coming out with electric cars, but Elon approaches the technology with a design mindset. After all isn’t design what set Apple apart from every other hardware company?

Tesla makes the best electric cars from a design and technology aspect. SpaceX is striving to conquer space travel unlike ever before. And PayPal literally created a banking system for the internet.

Forgetting about Tesla for a minute and everything else he has done, Elon has bigger visions. He wants to create a more eco friendly aircraft, that takes off and lands vertically. More than a technology visionary, I would say he is a visionary for the future of all man kind. I guess the title of this post may be inaccurate, Elon Musk won’t be the next Steve Jobs, he is going to be the first Elon Musk.

I think everyone should take a few minutes to view the video clip below.

You have probably heard by now that Steve Jobs has passed. Firstly, I want to express my condolences to Steve’s family, friends and everyone at Apple and furthermore- everyone that loves technology.

As you can imagine, it was pretty sad hearing about it; news of his passing kind of felt surreal.

I want to take a minute and ask that you join me, to have a moment of silence in Steve’s memory.

He has shaped a lot of the technology many of us use today- whether they are Apple products or not- chances are a lot of the technology you use was influenced by Apple’s- mainly Steve’s innovations. One of the greatest minds in the world has left us.

If you have got one or not, $99 for a tablet like the touchpad is a very cool deal. It obviously drove a lot of traffic to retailers online and off, to deplete all inventory in a matter of hours. There’s no question HP will lose money at the price point (as it costs them $300- and some change to manufacture the product), but there is a huge takeaway others in the tablet business can have from this situation.

Someone should create (preferably Google), a tablet priced at $99-$149, with the quality hardware a tablet should have, and an OS that people want (Android) other than iOS. So you are probably curious at this point how Google could achieve profitability at this price point. The goal wouldn’t be to make money off the hardware (it’s a sour and dying business anyways), it’s all in the software. Sell apps, sell more apps, and put ads on the device. Since Google is already in the ad business, the inventory and management of serving these ads wouldn’t be a problem. Put them in the browser and it will offset the loss of selling the tablets. They’ll create more impressions on these ads since tablet users are going to be using their tablets for longer duration of time than on their computer doing a search on Google. To make the deal even better for consumers, the ads should be disabled after an X number of impressions where Google recovers the amount of money they lose on the hardware.

Everyone knows Apple’s iPad is the number one selling tablet overall, but if another player wants to overtake them, they are going to have a very slim chance of dethroning Apple at the same price point of $499- no matter how killer the specs are- because they won’t have the app store. And since Google’s Android market is the most practical player, it’s only logical that they get in the tablet business first hand, like they’ve done with the Nexus line of phones.

Amazon did it with Kindle, placing ads on a cheaper version, but can you imagine how awesome it would be for a non-iPad tablet to achieve as much- or more market share than what the iPad has right now? Not to mention it would stimulate the ecosystem of apps for Android. Some of the best apps available on iOS are not available on Android, until months after the iOS launch, or ever. Why? Because the opportunity isn’t as huge. A product with a sweet price running the OS people can learn to love can disrupt how people buy tablets.

So what are your thoughts on tablets and the price point of non-iPad tablets?

Another hit out of Europe (Skype was from there) for sure, but more so one of the most relevant and useful tech companies of the past decade, Spotify, has all the buzz lately. And they deserve it. They’ve managed to create a radio meets iTunes client for online radio that everyone loves, myself included. There has always been different media players for consumers, but there hasn’t been one that lets you stream and listen to whatever song you want, for free in an iTunes like style, until Spotify.

I won’t rant on about how awesome Spotify is, instead, I’m making a bold statement and predicting that Google will acquire Spotify. Why? Well, there are many reasons and I will get to them, but my main thought is that Google will go head and head with iTunes, Google’s efforts combined with the boost of users Spotify already has, who have downloaded the desktop client, that will make them a big threat to Apple.

Aside from going head to head with Apple, there are other things that can benefit Google from acquiring Spotify, like their Google Music endeavors, a killer music experience for Android products and most interesting of all, tying Spotify in with Google+, particularly, the +points system.

I want to talk a little bit more about how Spotify is a huge threat to iTunes. If you think about it for a minute, iPod sales are on the downturn, that is mainly because people just use their Android or iPhone, as an mp3 player, that can do more than just play music. There is also a situation with the fact that each track generally costs $1.29 to buy on iTunes now, instead of $.99. In addition, people who buy more than 8 songs a month, are probably better off streaming the same music and more for $10/month with Spotify’s Premium plan. And the last point being that syncing will be irrelevant and people won’t need to deal with it if they stream their music, since their playlists are all available through one login on Spotify.

Now that we’ve established that Spotify is a threat, and a bigger threat to iTunes when Google acquires it, even though Spotify is not selling music and just streaming it, let me discuss why it will be a great move for Android.

Android is no doubt becoming more and more of a juggernaut, with 550,000 activations per day. But the Spotify experience seamlessly integrated with all Android phones and tablets? Now that’ll be a bigger scare for Apple. It’s kind of like Netflix, but 100x better because all of the new music available on iTunes is on Spotify, unlike Netflix where there is just junk for streaming (for the most part).

The combination of social (Google+) with a music streaming service like Spotify, will probably give Facebook a tough time. If Google makes all the playlists users have available in Google+, that would drive more people to be social for a longer amount of time, since their music is playing and it helps them waste more time through the day being non-productive (only kidding, but you know it’s true— how many people are on Facebook at work instead of actually working). The possibilities are endless, from people discussing their music to sharing, maybe even having a Google+ date with elegant music playing in the background (why not? It’s the digital age).

In fact, the whole acquisition could be expressed as an integration play. Integrate the Spotify service into every Android device natively. Integrate it into Google+. Plus it being on the desktop, would give Google a desktop presence and in turn they could integrate Google+ into Spotify’s desktop client, allowing users to surf their Google+ service on the client itself.

Obviously acquiring Spotify wouldn’t be cheap for Google, given Spotify’s raised about $150M and about 33.2M Euros, but with Google revenues around $9B for quarter 2/2011, it doesn’t seem that difficult.

Now there is a reason I didn’t predict Microsoft or Facebook would acquire Spotify for two reasons.

First, Microsoft wouldn’t acquire them because they are still probably working on integration of Skype, but more so because they are focused on other things like trying to eat Google’s lunch, with Bing and trying to 1 up Apple OS X with Windows 8.

Facebook simply does not have the cash to acquire a service like Spotify since it is not public, and while I’m sure they would throw in a bid during an auction, they won’t be the highest bidder, that said, you never know if Microsoft will pull another Skype and outbid Facebook and Google and just pick up Spotify so their competitors can’t have it. But if we start thinking like that Apple has been sitting on a pile of cash for years and hasn’t made many acquisitions and Spotify would assure their stability in the ecosystem for a little while, but I’m sure in that case the anti-trust brigade would come knocking.

People might say they’d still rather download music because of data caps on their cellular carriers data plans, etc, but the fact is that WiFi is available in many places than not, so that doesn’t seem like a big issue, more so because if you download more than 50 songs a month, it is still cheaper to pay for Spotify Premium, additional bandwidth for data on some carriers and still come out ahead. And if you can use Google Rewards like +points for a service like Spotify, I don’t see it doing anything but destroying Apple’s iTunes business. All in all I believe Apple has done a great thing and made everything digital for the world, but Google will make it’s move and it will be staggering.

P.S. It is good to note that Google has had discussions with Spotify in the past, offering $1B to acquire the company, but the issue was that the contracts Spotify has with the major music labels, would be renegotiated if the service is acquired, which throws a curveball for whoever is acquiring the service. So why will Google circle back in the future? Because Spotify will be able to grow under its current conditions to desktops (and mobile devices) around the world, and once there is a surety of number of users, the risk will be less, even if the service ends up costing the acquirer more money.

Before you read any of this, I have to say that if you think Google+ is “social”, it is a big understatement of the product.

Remember when Google said “social is a layer?” Well they weren’t kidding. People went as far as thinking Google was clueless about social, but the fact is the average Googler is smarter than the average human (source: myself).

I’m guessing if you are reading this you have heard of Google+, but if you haven’t it is a platform that Google is building that is going to be much bigger than social- (what many think it is). Don’t get me wrong, it is “social networking,” but there is a HUGE curve ball coming.

Before you continue, I’m going to paint the picture here for you. Think social+entertainment+commerce=Google+. By the way, a little birdy told me this…

Lets touch on social first. Social is obviously what everyone thinks Google+ is today and what people think it will continue to be in the months to come, but are mistaken. It doesn’t matter whether you are for the service or think it is just trying to steal Facebook’s game, and refuse to join, because in the end, you will want to join so bad, you might even pay for it. In my personal opinion, I already think some of the features Google+ has are 10x better than Facebook, for example Google Hangouts v. Facebook/Skype. The primary example being, you don’t need Skype branding to have a video calling service and it should have been on Facebook a few years ago, and group video calls with up to 10 people will drive more people to use Google’s Hangout functionality than one on one calling, especially in a commercial environment.

Now lets touch on entertainment. Here is the obvious, Google+ and YouTube will be linked together and the whole YouTube experience will happen inside Google+, for those who want it. But there’s a further step that most people don’t consider today. It’s YouTube movies. Now this might not make sense yet, but keep reading. People will be able to also play games inside Google+ and be rewarded for it, with REAL rewards (called +points). This is no new concept to the world, as many companies are currently rewarding its users with real tangible rewards for playing games, but the way Google is approaching this, makes all that seem irrelevant. By real rewards I should be more clear, Google won’t be giving away product X for playing a game, instead they will have a rewards system - the oldest form of rewards known to man kind. Google’s rewards (+points) will be able to be used to rent movies on YouTube movies, but more so it will play a killer role for the commerce business Google will bring to the social experience.

Here is where you start thinking Amazon. Everyone loves Amazon, for one big reason: it saves the consumer money most of the time. Google Commerce will use the +points earned from playing games inside Google+, among other ways of earning, like getting a certain number of people to engage with your Google+ posts, to discount items purchased through Google Commerce. Google also recently launched a product called Music. Currently you can’t buy music through Google Music, but that will change (with the cooperation of labels). However, just like +points could be used for YouTube Movies, they’ll play a gig in Google Music, once Google can ink the deals with record labels. There is also Google Offers, which these +points could be used for. Imagine buying a daily deal and not spending money on it. Playing a virtual game, getting points, and getting an end tangible satisfaction out of the whole system…sounds good to me.

So the killer question for all of this is: WHY? Why would Google give rewards to people for playing games and doing other things on Google+? It’s simple. People love it. It keeps the user lifecycle going in one big circle. Think about it this way, people are being social; playing games; connecting with friends, which they do already, and Google is giving +points for that. With +points, Google’s other business endeavors live on because who doesn’t like discounts or free things that they’d pay money for? In addition, the +points given to users, won’t eat away at Google, because they will earn revenue from the sources the points are given away in anyways. And the loop keeps going on and on as people spend more time on the platform.

All of this will only leave one question flowing in your mind…IS GOOGLE+ WHAT GOOGLE’S NEXT MAJOR BUSINESS IS? Everyone knows Google has been trying to innovate outside search, because in all fairness they may not be able to sustain what market share they have today for the next 10 years.

There is also another question. If Google executes on all of this in a successful fashion, it could certainly put a handful of other competitors in a sticky situation. How can anyone compete with Google’s “social layer” with rewards, leading toward cheaper or even free products for consumers? Google being in multiple spaces with Android, Google Offers, movie rentals on YouTube, a future commerce platform, Google Music, this could be really, really disruptive in the whole tech ecosystem.

A lot of you may know, I recently started SayClip. SayClip allows users to privately message their contacts through video. If you want to know why I created SayClip, you can read that here. You can download SayClip on iTunes here.

In this post, I’m going to give some thoughts on the social world.

It seems just about every new product that is launched in today’s world that relates to “social networking,” deals with some form of public communication. Whether it is sharing photos, videos, or just text, most things are open for the world to eavesdrop on. Social as we know it today, is screwed up. Being social with the world isn’t normal, and non-tech people that are over 20 are usually hesitant to tweeting their life secrets away. In all honesty, if you think about it, there’s some things that you could care less if 100 people other than the person you want to share a certain something with sees certain content, but quite frankly, there’s a lot more that you would say in a private situation. Lets take Skype for example, if you had a Skype conversation with your friend, you would be more direct and might share a lot more interesting things going on in your life, than you would on a UStream.tv stream.

This is why I am taking a highly private approach to SayClip. Being social is one thing, but being genuinely social is another. You might have 1000 Facebook friends, but who are your real friends that you can call in the middle of the night if your car breaks down to come pick you up? It’s connecting with those people that I want to enable, on a global scale.

So far, the app has been downloaded all across the world in a lot of different countries. This is something I hope increases communication between families or friends that live on different continents, something that gives a little substance to a message, instead of black and white text. Even saying a quick “hello” through a video clip is worth more than a text message saying “hello, how are you?” There is a web platform coming to SayClip in the next few days, which will allow people to communicate with app users, if they don’t have an iOS device. Of course the Android app will be made available shortly as well.

I’m making the world more social, in a private way.

Alright so, LinkedIn had its debut as a publicly traded company on Thursday. If you followed it- it exploded. My thoughts? It is absurd- now this is just my opinion, but I am going to say the stock will be worth way less than 1/2 what it is worth today, in 5 years worth of time. But that said, I think LinkedIn just played out the future for Facebook’s IPO and Twitter, if it plans to go public in the future also.

If you look at the earnings multiple and compare that to other companies, the other companies would be worth trillions. Hmmm….smells familiar. But back to Facebook and the future of social IPOs. In fact, I wouldn’t say just social IPOs, but everything related to social. Imagine Zynga having its IPO, etc. What LinkedIn did, Facebook will probably do with more noise, and quite possibly Twitter, too. The problem is that LinkedIn creates very little long term value (I feel). And the general population just doesn’t know that yet. However, a new startup BranchOut, will eat LinkedIn’s lunch, and dinner, and its fourthmeal.

Now that we’ve established that Facebook will have an even more jaw dropping debut on the public market, lets discuss how LinkedIn has a big problem.

BranchOut is basically LinkedIn ON Facebook. I should end my post here and just hit publish, but I’ll explain. People don’t want to be on 10 different services, that require remembering 10 different passwords, and connecting (finding) their contacts on those 10 networks over and over. Another problem is that some contacts are not on all 10 networks. BranchOut brings the LinkedIn features to Facebook (where the world *or at least 600 million people* lives). This makes it way too easy for people to career network on Facebook to even think about being on LinkedIn.

A lot of people might argue its good to keep social fun and social business apart from each other, but lets be honest, the world is becoming a more centralized place. We party with co-workers, and we work with friends. Others might think it will be questionable for BranchOut to build a layer on Facebook where it offers LinkedIn type functionality and the question that if BranchOut will be successful. But we can all learn a lesson from Zynga, whose supposedly valued in the billions, that building a layer on top of Facebook is possible, in a juggernaut way.

I could keep writing and express more opinions about this whole situation, but feel we should just keep it at that and watch what happens.

P.S. Congratulations to Reid and the team for such a successful exit!

Note: This post has been sitting in my queue for over a month or so now. TechCrunch recently posted this article talking about “the end of Blippy as we know it.” So I feel this post is relevant enough to share my thoughts through. Below is part of the original post, and everything in bold is written today.

Blippy was cool, for 5 minutes. A tool for sharing your credit card purchases seems 10 years too early for chances of success. Apprently, Blippy agrees, since it changed its model from just sharing to reviewing your purchases.

Blippy got a lot of press in its early days, but it seems to have failed to catch on and really take the internet by storm. I mean- do your friends really want to see what your bought? More so- do you really want to share what you’re buying at Walgreens? Perhaps, but I don’t.

I don’t even think an A-list celebrity user can have the masses flocking to use the service. The main problem arises with the age group. More young people would be inclined to use this type of product, but most young people don’t have credit cards. By the time they do- they probably have the sense of not posting everything they buy, online. I mean isn’t Facebook a problem for youngsters if they play sports or are looking for a job? Those pictures from that party can really damage their opportunities. Now think about spending money at a questionable establishment. That would really hurt their careers.

Aside from the concept, Blippy started giving away swag like nail clippers to users, which might have been okay, if the concept was worthy. This is a pure waste of capital in a startup. But I guess when a company has raised ample cash in a very short time, it makes them do silly things, without thinking them through.

But forget all that, assuming it’s all cool. Blippy exposed credit card numbers of some of its users. Now that is bad! Users can forgive and forget a company (especially a startup) for many things, but exposing sensitive information? Not so much. And you can’t blame them. When you tell people their credit card information is “secure” well- it better be. There is no reason why people would want to deal with secure information exposed and cleaning up that mess, especially when consumers are being “social” and sharing information willingly for such a controversial concept like Blippy.

More recently, the co-founder, Philip Kaplan has left Blippy and moved on to tinker around with iPhone apps. Cool, I guess. However, I think he should be sticking around and really re-focus the vision, if they plan to stay out of the deadpool.

The TechCrunch article mentions that Blippy is re-focusing the company, by creation of some social ecommerce tools, but frankly I just think they are avoiding the inevitable- the dealpool.