August 20, 2012
Go, go Google gadget Nexus Q! The software, math and physics wizards may be modern day Professor Gadgets, but even the good professor had issues from time to time.
The Q is crucial in Google’s efforts to connect home devices to the Internet and compete with Apple, but it will not be joining the competition anytime soon. The NYTimes’ article “Google Delays the Nexus Q After Poor Reviews” says the Nexus Q is back on the design table to improve functionality and answer consumer demands.
Google’s new gadget is similar to Apple TV and Roku because it can be plugged into televisions or speakers and be used for music or games. However, it still lacks when compared to the other devices:
“At $299, the Nexus Q is much more expensive than those products and does less. It only plays music, movies and TV shows from Google Play’s limited collection and YouTube, and can be controlled only from Android devices. Google promoted the Q’s ability to make listening to music social because people could change songs from their own Android devices, but early users said the process was cumbersome and it isn’t clear that people have a burning desire to do that.”
Google eventually plans on creating software that can handle mundane tasks like ordering eggs when needed, but we’d probably end up with cracked eggs. Yep, software, math, and physics wizards know how to do great hardware, but they need to know when to say “go, go Google gadget goodbye.”
Jennifer Shockley, August 20, 2012
August 17, 2012
Why just read advice when you can watch it? According to MSN Money’s article “blinkx Partners with Kiplinger for Personal Finance Wisdom” Kiplinger wants to go viral with their well-respected advice.
Most people think YouTube when they hear video, but blinkx has more than 35 million hours of audio and video content available with a customized search platform. Now they are combining with a company that holds the prestige of a well preserved antique in the world of finance wisdom.
Kiplinger is broadening blinkx’s financial horizon in hopes of expanding their viewer range:
“Kiplinger’s is one of the most trusted and well-respected sources for consumers seeking financial advice. Whether you’re a recent graduate coping with student loans or a parent looking for tips on tax breaks, our video library has helpful personal finance advice for you. We’re pleased to partner with blinkx to increase our exposure to new audiences and to make our video reports easily searchable for consumers around the world.”
Will video inject new revenue into the venerable Kiplinger? This noble company publishes the longest running newsletter in the US and is only one decade from the century mark. The print newsletters are not what they use to be and more presses collect dust every year.
This gosling does not think Kiplinger will receive any monumental renown via blinkx, but we’ll have to wait and see. In the meantime, Kiplinger does deserve a 12 Honk salute for reaching antique status.
Jennifer Shockley, August 17, 2012
August 6, 2012
Over the years, I have worked for different telcos. There was AT&T in my early days. Then Bell Communications Research, Bell Labs, and USWest. (Anyone remember USDEX? Goose tracks on that one, gentle reader.)
I am not too bright, a fact which I document in this blog with each post I write or cause to appear.However, I did figure one thing out, and it was not that the Young Pioneers sold T Shirts and candy. AT&T and other telcos infected with the monopolistic DNA of Ma Bell try to charge for everything. The fact that the companies don’t do this particularly well is not the issue. One way or another, telcos find a way to bill. It’s genetics passed from Bell Head to Bell Head.
I read “Al Franken says AT&T shouldn’t charge for FaceTime” and wondered, “Hmm. Does the Honorable Mr. Franken know about some weird mutation in the telco DNA?” Shifting carriers is not an option for many people in my opinion. It costs money and once people form a habit, it is tough to break that habit. Banks know that most customers will tolerate getting the proverbial ingot of gold dropped on their toes three, maybe four times before a new banking relationship will be sought.
With government yapping about business and the GSA paying unreported bonuses and “lost” referrals about financial tap dancing, I wonder if the government might invest a little time in their own back yard?
Stephen E Arnold, August 6, 2012
Sponsored by Augmentext
August 3, 2012
Creative Commons has brought “free” video to millions, and now The Next Web reports, “With 4 Million Videos, YouTube Now Has the Largest Collection of Creative Commons Videos in the World.” What a surprise.
The write up by Drew Olanoff notes that YouTube began building its Creative Commons video library one year ago, and has quickly captured the lead, at least in terms of quantity. Flickr, by the way has amassed the most Creative Commons-licensed photos.
Cathy Casserly, the Creative Commons CEO, recently blogged about her project’s YouTube-hosted library. She promotes:
“Do you need a professional opening for your San Francisco vacation video? Perhaps some gorgeous footage of the moon for your science project? How about a squirrel eating a walnut to accompany your hot new dubstep track? All of this and more is available to inspire and add to your unique creation. Thanks to CC BY [the Creative Commons Attribution license], it’s easy to borrow footage from other people’s videos and insert it into your own, because the license grants you the specific permissions to do so as long as you give credit to the original creator.”
Founded in 2001, Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization. Designed to counter the inability of bureaucratic systems to adapt to rapid technological changes, the organization provides a suite of licenses that works within copyright law’s “all rights reserved” realm. The goal is to empower folks to share and build on each other’s’ creative work online without the risk of some commercial entity snapping it up for profit.
Cynthia Murrell, August 3, 2012
July 18, 2012
According to the article, there are a few reasons off the bat for why GTV will not succeed and it all has to do with the fact that Google will not be able to win over television broadcasters. The second point to note is that no one really understands the goal for smart TVs.
When discussing the former issue, the article states:
“First, television broadcasters don’t want to work with anyone who aims to make money off their content. Sure they’ll sell a program here or there, but unless the set-top in your home is streaming out the unadulterated streams coming out of their satellites, they don’t want any part of it. By co-opting search and discovery, Google looks to the broadcasters like a parasitic organism rather than a money maker. TiVo (barely) survives because it acts as a smart VCR. Apple TV and GTV are slow to spread because they are, at best, glorified media players and they will never be anything more without real broadcaster buy-in.”
Perhaps Google will surprise us and turn GTV into a money making machine. However, it seems to me that, a company trying to conquer every inch of the tech landscape is going to fail more times than not. Stick to what you are good at Google.
Jasmine Ashton, July 18, 2012
Sponsored by IKANOW
June 9, 2012
If you thought prescreening YouTube videos was quick and easy, the article How Much Would It Cost To Pre-Screen YouTube Videos? About $37 Billion Per Year… might give you a change of heart or simply make you stare at the screen in awe.
You see, despite insistence that this should be mandatory, the main issues are time and you can’t just have anyone prescreen for violations. The person doing the job has to determine if the video is a copyright infringement. Who can you trust? Who will hold an unbiased opinion based on the actual law?
According to federal law only one person is qualified to take on the job and that is a judge:
“Using the fact that the average pay for a judge in Silicon Valley is apparently $177,454, and that based on the volume of uploads and number of hours in a working day, a mere 199,584 judges would be required as screeners, this gives us the final figure for the cost of checking properly those 72 hours per minute as $36,829,468,840 per year. Interestingly, Google’s revenue for 2011 was $37,905,000,000.”
The time and money figures provide understanding as to why it’s difficult to prescreen all uploads. You might even shed a tear for YouTube providers if the law demands video prescreening versus shutdown. An ironic and interesting factoid is that Google made enough to pay the judges… and still profit.
Jennifer Shockley, June 9, 2012
June 7, 2012
With increasing downloads on YouTube, it seems the emphasis should be on find ability instead of prescreening objectionable material. The article YouTube Uploads Hit 72 Hours A Minute: How Can That Ever Be Pre-Screened For ‘Objectionable’ Material?, discusses the increased difficulty of prescreening the videos; however an efficient search engine could resolve both issues.
Proper use of analytics or intuitive prediction, YouTube estimated their 72 hours of downloads per minute earlier this year stating:
“We average 60 hours of video being downloaded every minute, with an increase of more than 25 percent in the last eight months.
“This year, a 25% increase will probably take around around six months. In other words, the rate at which uploads occur is accelerating. Presumably at some point things will level off, but there’s no sign of that yet, and it’s not hard to see YouTube video uploads hitting 120 hours a minute or more.”
Locating these videos once they start swimming in the sea of scenes will depend widely on search optimization. YouTube utilizes search engine spiders, which locate by text, not images. Thus it falls into the hands of the films owner to amplify the ease of access using key words or phrases like a website or user name. The more descriptive providers are, the more easily accessible their videos. Proper research and use of SEO content can increase video find ability.
Jennifer Shockley, June 7, 2012
Sponsored by IKANOW
June 3, 2012
There’s a new service called Balakam, still in beta, that combines search with live media streaming. More than just a portal, the site allows you to search the Web for streaming radio, TV, and Web cams. Their About page states:
“The searching service allows to find sources of live broadcasting stations – radio, TV channels and web cameras transmitting live audio and video content over the Internet.
“The patented technology dramatically enhances the effectiveness of web browsing thus making the searching process quick and easy providing for the high relevancy of the search results.”
Balakam says its Geo feature lets users narrow the scope of their search to focus on a geographical area, be it their hometown or someplace on the other side of the world. However, I don’t yet see a link to use this feature, except for one little icon that lets me specify the US. As I am trying it out, the functionality is a teensy weensy bit buggy, and results seem highly skewed toward radio so far. I can’t hold that against them, though; this is a beta after all.
It sounds like the media search engine is a way to test the waters for the new company that specializes in Web search technology R&D. Located in Nizhny Novgorod, Russia, the startup began at MeraLabs, a privately owned incubator for high-tech venture projects, and has received seed funding from Russian Venture Company.
Cynthia Murrell, June 3, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
May 31, 2012
Today’s smartphones offers fresh video sharing apps that are making Youtube as appealing as a day old cheeseburger. The article How Social Video Could Kill YouTube leaves the impression that online video’s may get left in the microwave instead of on the dinner plate.
According to San Francisco-based Flurry;
“Startups like SocialCam and Viddy, two of the fastest growing social networks for sharing video on smartphones, may be on a collision course with Google-owned YouTube. While initial indicators are far from conclusive, rumblings of a possible market tsunami are afoot.”
“From January to March, people spent 10% less time watching YouTube videos online, while users of mobile video apps increased their viewing time by 52%.”
Times have changed and now Smartphones are the fresh apple pie of video. Why? They make the process simple. These ‘all in one’ devices are easily accessible and provide increasing process power, higher bandwidth and high-definition cameras. This makes them today’s favorite flavor when capturing memories and sharing them with friends and family.
Youtube has an app for video sharing, but it still requires multiple steps, whereas the apps offered by Smartphones are simple, often offering one step procedures to share. If this story is accurate, is there trouble ahead for Google’s video ambitions? Youtube may be doomed to become yesterday’s cheeseburger compared to the piping hot new apps available on smartphones.
Jennifer Shockley, May 31, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
May 21, 2012
Online Media Daily recently reported on YouTube’s desire to attract more content deals with large media companies in the article “Report: YouTube Mulls Content Subscription Service.”
According to the article, the Google company currently has a global audience of over 800 million unique users. While YouTube has no plans to begin charging for its current content offerings, it might add premium offerings that are not already on the video-sharing site. Since it already does movie rentals and sports subscriptions, this would not be all that different.
The article states:
“In adding a new subscription service, the idea is to entice owners of high-demand programming in categories such as live sports, music and entertainment to put their content on YouTube. Much of this content is owned by big media companies, which receive the bulk of their revenues from TV advertising and subscription TV carriage fees. Many of these companies have been unwilling to put their content on YouTube, because of its predominantly advertising-only business model.”
This may not be a new idea, but it will certainly cause some changes in the way YouTube does business and may impact the way that others see the company. Will this solve the big hat, no cattle problem of YouTube?
Jasmine Ashton, May 21, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot