Forrester in their recently released report, titled “Consumer Behavior Online: A 2009 Deep Dive,” shows that overall time spent on the Internet has remained at 12 hours per week, same as last years report. They compare that with TV viewing consumption at 13 hours per week and seemingly unchanged since 2004.

The problem I have with such high level survey statements is they don’t tell the whole story. What’s missing and what I’d really like to see is a breakdown by the amount of solo time spent per activity and the amount of time spent multi-tasking. How much of the 12 hours online also included watching TV at the same time? How much was just online and how much was just TV? Did Forrester ask this question? Many, many people these days, including nearly everyone I speak with in tech circles, tell me that they’re multi-tasking on the Internet even when they are watching TV. For example, right now I am writing this blog post but I also have the SF Giants game on the TV. Do I claim this as TV time or Internet time or was their an option for both? That would be interesting to know.

Also, the chart clearly shows a decline in reading newspapers, magazines and radio but doesn’t tell us if those are some of the activities that people perform online instead. We hear all the news headlines, no one reads news papers or magazines anymore or no one listens to the radio any longer. They try to make it sound as if we are not reading anything about news events, but I argue that we are actually consuming MORE news and media than ever before. It’s just not in the traditional printed or broadcast form. With the ease of the Internet to get info on my schedule about things I’m interested TV, radio and print will never be able to match. It’s no surprise that people aren’t using the traditional forms of media anymore but don’t assume that means that people are not read or informed. I’d like to see user response to where they get their news these days.

I think TV is also understated. Most people don’t want to admit they consumer more than 12 hours a week

Click here to get the full story from CNET News

Just read the post on TechCrunch about Apple rejecting the google voice app for the iPhone. They have now pulled all the google voice apps from the app store, claim that google voice has “duplicate features that come with the iPhone”, which is against the Apple developer terms of use.

Now most people know I love Apple products. You simply can’t argue against the innovation that radiates out of Apple offices that completely change everything. The iPod ecosystem, the iPhone and its ecosystem the desktops and laptops…prety much the only one they haven’t nailed yet is Apple TV. There’s no doubt that Apple can enter a market and change it almost overnight.

Now there’s a number of things that Apple gets away with that should Microsoft try they would be blasted almost non-stop by the media. But this one pushes the line a bit far. People are speculating that AT&T is behind this more, which sounds plausible given they also see Google voice as a threat. With Google Voice, consumers can get all their calls through a single number. Just add all your other numbers to Google Voice and then make your own rules for how your phones ring. It’s pretty cool and seemingly very helpful app. However, if you are AT&T you can see how this dis-intermediates them and puts the consumer touch point with Google. It’s pretty much the same thing as Google being the starting point for the web. All these companies spend millions to build a brand yet people remember Google; they found it on Google. I’m sure AT&T would prefer this would not happen.

But it’s also plausible that Apple found the app threatening as well and decided to thwart the app from gaining users on iPhones until Apple can add all the cool features from GV to it’s own app. I wouldn’t put it past them. Sometimes us Apple fans have to admit that Apple is capable of pulling such a move. They are afterall a for-profit company.

Click here to check out the full story on TechCrunch.

I just read an interesting article in the new york times about the increased danger of texting while driving. The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute compiled the research over an 18 month period. Their tests involved installing video cameras in truck cabs recording the drivers actions including the time drivers took their eyes from the road to send or receive texts.

This report seems to be getting picked up by local newscasts. I guess I can see the attraction for the news, we can all relate to this. But I question the risk rates as they seem to have defined them. If the test was simply looking at the amount of time it appeared the drivers eyes were not looking at the road then it’s missing other key data points such as traffic conditions.

No I’m not advocating people should text when they are driving. I’m simply pointing out the way the numbers are being manipulated. At any rate, it’s an interesting story. You can read it in full here-