Yes, 3D is kind of fun.  At the Samsung and LG booths I tried out some of the 3D TVs they had there.  It reminded me of Jaws 3D, which was the first 3D movie I can remember watching.  The problem is, it reminded me of Jaws 3D.  Is it just me, or has the 3D experience not really improved since 1983?  It’s not like watching a truly 3-dimensional environment – the “3D” effect is usually only heightened for certain parts, like Jaws jumping out at you or Pinocchio’s nose growing out towards you.

As for e-Readers, most of the e-Readers seemed very me-too-ish – nothing too compelling.  One device that stood out in terms of physical design was Plastic Logic’s Que Reader.  But upon seeing a demo from one of the reps there, I couldn’t help but feel underwhelmed.

And, so, I had been dragging my feet on a blog post that, after a few weeks, seemed silly to try to write anyway.

Then on January 27^th, 2010, a Cupertino company made a small product announcement.

Fast-forward a few more weeks and I now realize that the blog post I had been delaying can now be written.  In hindsight, what was interesting about CES 2010 was not anything that I saw there – it was what I didn’t see there.  Sure there was a lot of cool gadgets.  3D TVs may even become mainstream someday (I sure hope the 3D watching experience improves, though).  And there’s almost no doubt that all TVs will be web-connected appliances in the near future.   But no one had anything that made everyone pause and say, “whoa… I think the game just changed.”

To me, that’s just what Apple has done with the announcement of the iPad.  On the one hand, there isn’t really anything about the iPad that people weren’t expecting in terms of features, capabilities, or performance.  It’s a honkin’ big iPod Touch.  In fact, some said it was underwhelming.

But, for whatever reason, the announcement of the iPad has signaled the start of something.  While the iPad may appear to be less-than-revolutionary and does things that most people pretty much expected it would do months ago, it appears to me that it has, indeed, changed the game.

The iPad announcement has made tablet and mobile computing relevant and exciting.  If I recall correctly, Microsoft, HP, and Lenovo, all had tablet computing announcements of some sort at CES.  But they weren’t really buzz-worthy announcements.  In fact, most people seemed to react to those announcements with “I can’t wait to see what Apple is going to announce.”

But now, an entire category and changing consumer behavior are expected to be introduced.  While Bill Gates had been talking about tablet computing being the next big thing for years (he predicted it would be the most popular form of PC within 5 years… back in 2001), Apple’s announcement seems to have convinced many people of the possibility.

We now see computer and consumer electronics makers scrambling to make devices to compete with the iPad.

And while most analysts don’t seem to believe that the iPad is a Kindle killer, Amazon is already feeling the sting as the iBookstore is (indirectly) forcing Amazon to play ball with publishers on eBook pricing.  And at least one analyst thinks Amazon’s share of e-book sales will fall from 90% to 35% in 5 years as a result of competition from Apple and Google.

Magazines and newspapers may have new life with the iPad (and the entire category of slate/tablet devices).

I’m not saying the iPad is a revolutionary device that will have its competitors playing catch up for years like the original iPod.  And although tablet computing is hardly new, the iPad has created a whole new category, experience, and usage that people appear to be ready to receive.  On the one hand, it doesn’t seem to be anything special.  On the other hand, it’s the 2010 CES story that I should have been writing about.  But didn’t. Because it wasn’t.

What’s your take on the iPad?  Revolutionary device?  Savior to the publishing world?  A new way to consume all media?  The tip of the iceberg that is portable computing?  An overgrown iPod and nothing more?

For the last several weeks, much has been written about Rupert Murdoch’s plans to de-index from Google and put up pay walls for News Corp’s digital media properties.

Variety.com (the Hollywood trade publication) has also announced that it will revert back to erecting a pay wall for its content.  Variety.com had this model in place as recently as 2007 when it decided a pay wall didn’t work.  Well, I guess that was then…

And now, we have three major publishing houses announcing that they will hold back e-book versions of some titles, making them available several weeks to several months after the initial launch of the hardcover.  Hey, movie studios have been doing that for years, right?

Finally, the major music labels have announced that they will cease the production of all recordings, digital or otherwise, and force people to attend live concerts if they want to hear their favorite music.

OK, I made that last one up.

Where’s the innovation?  It’s undeniable that traditional media companies are under a lot of pressure to hold on to their revenues.  Some are fighting for survival.  But shouldn’t such circumstances spark innovation?

Let’s look at publishers’ plans for holding back e-book versions of some of their titles.  Is it really a good idea to force consumers to buy hardcover versions when so many of them have already demonstrated that they want e-books?  Is it really a good idea to artificially prop up the value of a hardcover, at the expense of making an e-book a less attractive product, when the trend seems to clearly favor e-books going forward?

Insights into customer needs (e.g. people want to buy, carry around, and read books conveniently) and foresight into the evolving market (e.g. e-book market is growing very quickly; and every electronics manufacturer and their cousin are readying better, faster, do-more e-readers) should be driving innovations at these media companies.

Instead, they seem to be gripped by the fear that consumers who grow accustomed to paying $9.99 for an e-book won’t want to pay $25 for a hardcover.  That may be true.  But what exactly are they hoping will happen?  That consumers who have already invested in an e-reader, and who have already been enjoying e-books, will be willing to pay a premium for a product they don’t really want?   Or that, by making e-books less attractive for consumers, they will simply forget about them and return to buying big, heavy hardcover books?

The ground around media companies is definitely shifting.  The environment is ripe for innovation.  Some will survive.  Some will not.  But I think the ones that will thrive will be the ones that innovate.  I just haven’t seen any shining examples of innovation from the incumbents lately.

What do you think?  Am I glossing over any innovations from the big media companies?

Then comes the news that Playdom just raised $43 million on a whopping $260 million valuation.  Playdom is the dominant game developer on MySpace (you remember MySpace, don’t you?), but is a late-comer to Facebook.

And, of course, there’s Zynga, the company responsible for countless wasted hours at offices around the world with Texas HoldEm Poker during Facebook’s early days and, more recently, with Farmville (thank god for the ability to block notifications on Facebook, btw).  Rumors continue to circulate that Zynga has its eyes on a possible IPO next year — and even a $1 billion valuation has been thrown about (cue Dr. Evil with pinky at his lips).

All of these companies are killing it with a free-to-play model, largely based on micro-transactions.  A few cents here, a few cents there… when you have millions upon millions of people playing, those pennies add up.  Tim Chang, a principal at the venture capital firm, Norwest Venture Partners, estimates that the three companies’ combined annual revenue run rate stands at about $350 million right now and the industry as a whole may be at $1 billion.  That’s a lot of  farming seeds and pet supplies.

Now, I’m a guy who can’t bring himself to buy virtual goods to advance in a video game (hey, I’m not cheap… financially responsible is how I see it), but I have seen enough to know there are plenty of people that will spend plenty of money.  In a past life, I helped to bring the GOLF.com Pro Challenge, a golf video game, onto Facebook.  Operating that game, I saw first hand just how much people would spend to play.  We even had some players forking out $100  for a virtual golf club.  I may not buy virtual goods, but I’m definitely a believer in virtual goods and micro-transactions as a revenue model.  Apple also recently made it possible for developers to sell virtual goods within free apps.  Many see this as potentially the beginning of a very lucrative market for iPhone games that are free-to-play but, which, generate revenues from virtual goods.

All of this adds up to this being a fun time to be in the video games business.  And a fun time for playing video games.  I’m looking forward to seeing more, better games I can play for free or almost free, like the multitude of $0.99 iPhone games (hey, stop calling me cheap!).

But what about you?  C’mon… how much money have you spent playing “free” games?