A few weeks ago, I wrote about a new and interesting way some recording artists have started to use the internet: in an "if-you-can’t-beat-’em-join-’em" move, several pop acts have decided to embrace the medium to the extent of making even the individual elements (the discrete instrumental and vocal parts that make up the recording as a whole) of some of their work freely available online.  The general public can download these ’stems’, alter them, edit them, add new material, and put it all back together as a new (and hopefully interesting) creation of their own.

Completing the circle, these remixes can then be uploaded back onto the original artists’ websites, for sharing and commentary.

Just a few artists hosting public remix "contests": Radiohead , Mariah Carey , Franz Ferdinand , Third Eye Blind , and Nine Inch Nails …

And so you have fans, aspiring DJs, and recording studio professionals all sharing their creations side by side on the original artist’s website: a fundamental redefinition and flattening of of the artist/audience relationship, the composition/production relationship, and an obvious musical corollary to web 2.0 - ‘open source music’, if you will…


All well and good. But while that’s what the cool kids have been up to, along comes Microsoft Research with a decidedly uncool demo of their new $29.95 Songsmith application. This program will take a melody sung into your computer’s audio input and generate chords and accompaniment based on on the pitches it detects, the styles you select, and the settings of parameters with names such as "Happy" and "Jazzy" (more on the modeling and algorithms behind all that here) .
Whether or not this is an intriguing or a sadly misguided use of technology is open for discussion - what’s more interesting (to me, at least) are the cover versions of popular songs now starting to appear up on Youtube using the original vocal tracks as Songsmith input material. Some (such as this version of Oasis’ "Wonderwall") are almost musical - while others (such as this take on Van Halen) are just kind of cringe-inducing.


It would be all to easy to come down on Songsmith as fundamentally anti -musical (a lot of people have seen that unfortunate Microsoft demo video and done just that) - but consider this: if you believe (as I do) that a little play-time is healthy for us grownups too, what’s so bad about software that lets people have some fun with their computer creating these Soundsmith cover version/remixes?  Maybe they’ll be inspired to use the software to take it a step further and at least get at least a whiff of what it might be like to write a song on their own from scratch…

So while it might not be for everyone, I think Microsoft Songsmith is just fine, for what it is - unleashing the inner Moby within all the John Hodgman s out there…

I know this is not a political blog. But Washington’s elected officials seems to have gone (finally) seriously digital. 

And I just can’t help myself but chime in.

I recently wrote about the Obama administration’s fervor for online social networking and viral (political) marketing.

Turns out US Congress representatives have long taken similar interest in making Web 2.0 their own. 

No matter where you stand politically, I believe this is generally good news for the technology industry, plus associated consumer software products and applications.

From mundane announcements of “one minute speeches” to instantaneously delivered results on House votes, at least since November 2007, the Clerk of the US House of Representatives regularly provides copious live updates “scraped” right from daily session inside the House chambers.

Then I got curious. Did I also miss the US Senate’s foray into micro-blogging? 

Sure enough, I did 

Although seemingly limited to Senator votes on the floor alone, Twitter has been carrying those posts at least since November 2007.

Turns out, they all nicely track back to govtrack.us, an independent Web site to “help the public research and track the activities in the US Congress.

Little did I know, D.C.’s interest in twittering created a new virtual C-SPAN if you will, sort of the “local access” approach parsed out one online message at a time.

And during yesterday’s historic session (voting on a trillion dollar support budget no less), US House representatives took to Twitter like college students (secretively, under their desks), pushing Blackberry and smartphone keys - eager to issue last-minute statements right from inside House chambers.

To top it all off, now even closed-door Presidential meetings experience their first Twitter “leaks”.

So, if this is not a political blog, why am I (still) writing about this stuff?

I am simply excited about how Web 2.0 is rapidly growing up, maturing from its early teenage “angst” appeal to a “mainstream” text and video channel - all within a couple of years.

Think of it.

As more politicians, news outlets and civic organizations thrive to adopt Web 2.0-style concepts, instant viral messaging from elected officials and others raise the legitimacy of collaborative software as a whole.

From Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Twitter, Qik, or Utterz, you name it, this is good for the devices and the connecting broadband services that support Web 2.0 at home and on-the-go.

If you still think this trend is not real, the US Postal Service announced today a fiscal-year loss of at least $6 billion, due to a 4.5% drop, or 9 billion items replaced by email and other forms of digital viral communications. 

And although it is not entirely clear to me that the same $6 billion shifted into Web 2.0 software in its entirety  (most social networking and micro-blogging services are free or ad-based at best), it clearly shows a fundamental shift in how we capture and disseminate information these days.

On that note, have you twittered today?

I’m looking over some recent numbers from nielsen online and I’m struck by something: while hulu may indeed be a big fish, long-form internet video is still a pretty small pond.  Consider:

Of the four major broadcast networks, hulu partners Fox and NBC saw the largest month-over-month increases in October 2008:  Fox was up 165%, while NBC (helped by Tina Fey’s triumphant if temporary return to SNL as America’s favorite eye-winking, Russia-seeing hockey mom) saw a whopping 312% increase (by contrast, ABC was up 105% and internet video laggard CBS was only up 38%.)

312 % and 165 % increases over the course of one month? Let’s celebrate - professionally produced long-form video has finally come into its own, right?

Wrong.

From that same Nielsen report, here’s another statistic: during October, YouTube had almost 82 million unique visitors to hulu’s 6.3 million - that’s a factor of fifteen (even with Tina Fey’s Palin sketches driving users to hulu).

A direct comparison between the two by total streams delivered would skew unfairly towards YouTube due to the shorter running time of the average user-generated video - but what the heck, let’s do it anyway, just for fun…  because the difference between those Nielsen numbers is even more stark than you might imagine: YouTube delivered almost 38 times the total number of streams delivered by hulu.

That’s thirty eight times more streams from YouTube than hulu.

Granted, hulu is one well-executed website.  Yet clearly, long-form premium video over the internet still has a long way to go.  What’s the takeaway here?  In my opinion, the answer is somewhat obvious: people don’t want to sit alone in front of their computers for a half hour or more at a time to view long-form video - in other words, the effectiveness of the personal computer as a video-viewing device is inversely proportional to the program length of the video being viewed.

The numbers in this report clearly put Hulu and YouTube in stark contrast against one another in terms of actual usage.  However, it would be a mistake to fail to take into account the fundamental differences between the short form/long-tail (user generated) and long form/short-tail (professionally produced) video viewing experiences - or the fact that we don’t have a truly compelling lean-back device for delivering long-form internet video viewing just yet.  Therefore, it would be a mistake to infer from reports such as this that internet video will remain primarily a short-form UGC medium.

For long-form premium video over the internet, it’s going to take a new generation of device that offers content directly from the couch before we can make any such comparisons.   The user interface on these devices will not be a web-browser, instead it will be simpler and optimized for lean-back media. Companies such as boxee (at left) and Yahoo/Intel are working on just such user interfaces. While I’ve already written a bit on the Yahoo initiative here, Boxee is more recent development. Right now it’s just a Windows/Mac application that aggregates disparate video sources (including Hulu) into a cohesive whole. While that’s pretty cool in itself, what makes Boxee really interesting is that the company plans to bring dedicated set-top Boxee hardware to the market within the next year or so - and in ther meantime, the software can be installed on the Apple TV device today. As I’ve said before, I think the prospect of Boxee on - well, a box - changes everything.

We shall see - but in the meantime, a quick reality check is in order: while well-suited to workplace video snacking, the computer and web browser are inappropriate (and ultimately intermediate) solutions for viewing long-form video - no matter how well-implemented a given website (such as Hulu) happens to be.

I was recently invited to a Microsoft Developer’s Conference here in New York, and along with the muffins and the buffet lunch buffet was served a heapin’ helping of Azure, Redmond’s nascent cloud computing platform (currently in beta).

Despite the downside of potential privacy and network performance issues, cloud computing offers a lot of advantages (scalability, cost effectiveness, and ease of maintenance,  to name just a few).  This makes internet based, service-oriented computing a very attractive option (especially for small to mid-size businesses) - so we (along with almost everyone else) expect to see cloud computing continuing to gain traction.  In other words, more of your local CPU cycles are going to be moving from your desktop or local server (both probably Windows machines, I might add) up into the cloud.

Somebody’s cloud, that is - but whose?

Microsoft would prefer it to be theirs, thank you very much.  However, there are two primary competitors also in the marketplace: Google (with its Application Engine), and Amazon (with its EC2 “Elastic Computing” service):

• EC2 allows customers to rent a variable number of instances of virtual servers,  which the customer configures as needed and then installs applications on.  Originally limited to Unix and Solaris operating systems, Amazon now offers Windows Server and several flavors of Linux as well.  High marks go to Amazon for flexibility, but maintenance and overhead is as almost as high as if the servers were in a standard data center (albeit a really nice data center…)
• Google’s App Engine takes a different approach - in short, there’s less maintenance and overhead, but also less flexibility.  The service is currently limited to applications written in Python, which users administer via a web console - the underlying operating system(s) are protected and shielded from the user.   App Engine is currently in “Preview” mode (Google having evidently singlehandedly worn out the term “Beta”), so pricing is not yet known.  More importantly, it also remains to be seen whether Google will make other programming languages available besides Python.

The idea behind these two services was to leverage largely pre-existing server capacity, infrastructure, and expertise.  Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn’t happen to have a comparable worldwide network of internet-optimized server farms laying around unused, and they do like to think big out there in Redmond - so they are throwing the long ball on this one: at last week’s event, I learned about plans to build out 20 immense Azure data centers strategically located around the world (Microsoft is literally fork-lifting in shipping containers full of servers…)

Together, these data centers represent a $20 bil investment - which by coincidence, almost matches the $20.7 bil Microsoft holds in cash reserves - can you say “betting the farm”?   (If a less PR-challenged company was undertaking something this impressive over the next year, I think we’d be hearing a lot more about it…)

Azure Technically, what I like about Azure is that it’s more of a true single “cloud operating system” than either Google’s service (too opaque) or Amazon’s service (too fragmented).  With Azure, you’ll be able to run Microsoft’s managed code (such as ASP.net and C#), Microsoft’s native code (C++ ), and via .NET, you can also deploy Java and Ruby apps - or any combination of the above.  At the same time, the underlying system housekeeping (and most importantly, the overall failover, data storage, scalability, and load-balancing) are all Microsoft’s problems - so it would appear to be the best of both worlds.  However, I feel the real value-add of Azure has to do with these 20 planned data centers and with the effectiveness of the Azure “Fabric Controller” at managing them - if done well, it could be pretty spectacular.

Hence the title of this post:

The Most Important Person At Microsoft… To the extent computing continues to move from the desktop up to the cloud, Azure will be critical to Microsoft’s future - and since the Azure team is only about 150 people, that does narrow it down a bit (sidebar: according to anthropologist Robin Dunbar’s well-known research, 150 also tends to be the maximum size for effective human social groupings across a surprising variety of cultures).  But back to our “Most Important Person” award: is it Azure team leader Ray Ozzie?  Nope.  Is it either of his lieutenants Amitabh Srivastava or David Cutler?  Nu-unh.  Steve Ballmer?  No sir.

Is it Jerry Seinfeld?  Wrong again.

In my opinion, the most important person at Microsoft is Debra Chrapaty, in charge of the Azure data center infrastructure - because while Azure is currently being tested within just a single Redmond data center, how well Microsoft’s Fabric Controller will manage the Azure cloud as it expands to 20 geographically-diverse data centers is both the initiative’s largest differentiating factor and its largest unknown.

(By the way, Azure represents yet another step in the Privatization of the Internet - more on that here.)

(And here.)

(And here.)

Back from CES - the annual Consumer Electronics love fest in Las Vegas,  (OK, I am a bit late posting this) - I am actually pretty psyched about what’s coming down the consumer electronics pike this year.

As CE devices get faster, smarter, and increasingly untethered, the “on-your-terms” digital lifestyle proposition pitched to us for all these years seems a considerable step closer to its “anywhere, anytime” goal.

Yet, despite years of impressive CES innovation hoopla, I continue grappling with a personal observation I lovingly coined the “Star Trek bottleneck”:

CE designers’ propensity for innovation seems directly proportional to their lifetime exposure to, yup, you guessed it - the popular Starship Enterprise television series.

OK, I am kidding. But as with any good joke, there’s some truth to it.

To stick with the Star Trek analogy - short of time travel and “beam me up Scotty” - is there anything in CE land that Captain Kirk and his crew didn’t have that’s not readily available to us in stores today?

There’s the wireless video monitor and the wrist-band smart phone, plus the super-smart refrigerator, remote home security, and a growing number of cute gadgets.

All set in slick form factor, of course, all with build-in intelligence processing more information ever faster. Good ol’ Gene would have been proud.

In other words, it’s as if this past-century icon of sci-fi television continues to haunt our 21st century CE designers to this day.

Of course, I have no empirical data, no scientific studies. Just a pretty good hunch, mixed in with a healthy dose of cynicism, about why today’s CE industry seems unable to think more innovatively about, well about innovation itself.

Maybe it needs a new and decidedly young(er) generation of CE designers to get us beyond my “Star Trek bottleneck” dilemma? One void of stylized sci-fi TV exposure and implicit 60ies and 70ies ideas of what innovation should be.

But than again, no matter what any new group of CE designer may come up with, it still needs to stay sufficiently functional and attractive to consumers, right, or it simply won’t sell?

So, maybe it’s not just about passing the CE design torch on to the next generation, but also about our own limitation as consumers to desire (and then use) something entirely different from what we collectively perceive as “innovative” today? 

So where might we be heading next?

My guess on this, next-gen CE devices will focus on software rather than hardware, and regard bolstering quality-of-life as a key goal.

That next evolutionary step in consumer electronics might then have less to do with form factor (that’s largely covered ;-), and much more with adding previously unavailable intelligence inside and outside existing hardware concepts.

The key driver - and blocker at the same time? Our collective ability to imagine beyond the obvious.

Any of this probably not for CES 2010. But hey, let’s see what CES 2020 will bring.

Consider Sony and Apple - in many ways, two similar companies: both span both the computing and CE spaces, both have intimate connections to a major studio (Sony Pictures and Disney, respectively), and both adhere to closed-end vertical silo business models.  Granted, Sony doesn’t write their own operating systems, and unlike Apple TV, the current Sony internet-video-to-the-television box (the Internet Video Link) is partnered with 3rd party services such as Amazon’s Video on Demand - but in other ways Sony represents more of a closed ecosystem than Apple: while the Apple TV will work with any HDMI-equipped TV, the Video Link will only work with Sony Bravia televisions - and while iTunes is platform-agnostic, Sony’s previous ill-fated internet TV device from a few years back (the Sony Room Link) demanded not only a PC, but a Sony Viao PC.

This past week saw some news from both companies:

• Sony announced an expected $US 2.9b operating loss for 2008
• Apple recorded a year-over-year revenue increase of over 6% for the most recent quarter - and this despite the historically horrendous macroeconomic climate of the past few months



It’s an ongoing debate among those of us who think about consumer electronics and technology: closed proprietary platforms vs. open standards-based platforms.  Stability and elegance on one hand, lower costs and increased innovation on the other - two entirely different paradigms.

In addition to their numerous other circumstantial similarities, Sony and Apple both subscribe to the former - so maybe it’s not about the intrinsic advantages of a closed or open technology model (or other factors, for that matter) as much as it’s about the quality and desirability of the product.

Historically, administration of the internet (that same internet that now supports billions of dollars of e-commerce) has been a remarkably communal, non-commercial endeavor, depending on a loose collection of several multinational government research agencies and non-profit corporations.  That such a non-centralized and flat coalition of groups and interested individuals could successfully manage the astronomical scaling up of the internet we’ve witnessed over the last few decades is truly amazing, yet largely taken for granted.

These days, though, one of the primary long-term trends we’re seeing is the emergence of the Content Delivery Network - in essence, a privatized internet.  The growth of these additional proprietary layers is primarily driven by technological considerations - both internet video and cloud computing are placing demands on the internet Vint Cerf could not have imagined.

However, the end result could well be the marginalization of today’s egalitarian public internet (we’ve already touched on the growing presence of proprietary content delivery networks and Google’s pursuit of transcontinental fiber here, and on the resulting implications for Net Neutrality here).

CDNs and proprietary backbone links both represent workarounds of the public internet routing structure, but there’s another part of the internet undergoing similar changes: the Domain Naming System (DNS).   While routing is all about numeric IP addresses, DNS is about mapping these unfriendly numeric addresses (such as “216.239.113.101” or “2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334” in the case of IPv6) to more human-appropriate names such as “digitalmissive.com”.  In other words, DNS is essentially a massively distributed database - yet one the fulfills an absolutely crucial function, if you think about it.

However, as impressive as DNS is, it’s also a key point of vulnerability - if you want to see what a jungle it is out there on the internet, just try maintaining your own publicly exposed  DNS server and watch the attacks launched against it (trust me on that one).  Furthermore, it’s not a very transparent system, and any changes made to a DNS record can take over a day to fully propagate across the entire system.  It only follows then, that as with routing, proprietary DNS systems would emerge, representing the next step in the ongoing privatization of the internet.  And so we have Dynamic DNS and firms such Dynect.  Dynect offers enterprises using distributed cloud computing applications a highly optimized private dynamic DNS system - including additional features such as load balancing, traffic management, and failover.  As with CDNs, all this functionality is localized to the end user via Dynect’s geographically diverse network of data centers, to help minimize exposure to the increasingly strained and messy public internet cloud.

Clearly, there are sound technological reasons for the emergence of these additional privatized layers of the internet.  As for what it means in terms of the nature of the internet itself going forward, I’m less sure.

Any thoughts?

The Holy Grail: internet video directly from the TV.

While the primary challenges would seem to be hardware-based,  there are equally significant (and equally daunting) software challenges to be met as well, because no computer = no OS = no web browser.   Traditional operating systems aren’t appropriate for a lean-back passive viewing system on any number of levels, and studies repeatedly show that nobody really wants a full-featured browser on their television (and a keyboard on their coffee table) anyway, so in one sense it’s no great loss.  However, forgoing all that standardized functionality leaves one with a lot of design and development work to do: what about an operating system?  What should the user interface(s) look like?  Can we get by with the current button-laden remote as an input device, or should a Wii-like pointing remote be developed?  And how does the type of input device dictate what type of functionality can get built into the system itself?  All in all, a pretty heavy lift - because what we’re talking about here is the creation of an entirely new interface to the internet (potentially every bit as important as the web browser).

Into the void step Yahoo and Intel.  Just announced at last week’s CES is the Connected TV Widgets Channel, a ‘software foundation’ for internet-enabled television hardware built around a new generation of specialized Intel processors.  While the framework will be open to 3rd party software developers (according to Yahoo’s Patrick Barry, “We get a nice advantage, knowing the ins and outs, but we will not limit the platform to being addressable by us”), it’s worth noting that Yahoo and Intel are going with a lightweight “widget” model rather than a heavier-weight application model.   Running a widget on a modified JavaScript engine rather than an installed application down on the operating system itself tends to protect the OS from poorly-behaved software and also allows for more generalized control of what the software can and can’t do.  Much like the Apple App Store model, the widget model represents an attempt to strike a balance between encouraging open and innovative software development, while at the same time providing appropriate “guard rails” for what are, after all, consumer electronics devices rather than computers (look for this trend to continue as cloud computing and the overall “CE-ization” of home computing continues).

Initially at least, the Widget Channel appears to be primarily about adding ancillary features on top of the traditional cable/satellite television you already have – in other words, imagine being able to call up feeds from fan message boards or team websites in a dock at the bottom of your TV screen while simultaneously watching the big game on cable…   Or having a dashboard of specialized weather, news, or twitter feeds available while watching “Madmen” via satellite dish…

• On a purely technical level, though, there’s nothing to prevent a Connected TV widget from streaming video, either (bandwidth permitting).  At that point, things get interesting - as the innocent little ‘widget’ starts to eat into existing television distribution models.

• In fact, the terms “Widget” and “Channel” are both misleading, because the Intel/Yahoo initiative is not about merely adding additional incidental functionality -  it’s about (cue the thunderclap and the dry ice) letting internet video into your television.  In other words, that local weather report or eBay quote on the bottom of your screen is really something of a Trojan Horse (a point already probably not lost on the cable industry).

Connected TV is, um, well-connected: on the hardware side, CE manufacturers such as Samsung, Sony, and LG are already on board, and for web content, deals have been inked with traditional heavyweights such as eBay and the New York Times (among others).  For the video over IP scenario to play out, though, what Connected TV needs are video content partnerships - and there too, Yahoo and Intel seem to have things well in hand: agreements have already been signed with CBS, Netflix, Amazon, Blockbuster, and Showtime

It’s been a while since we’ve seen much good news coming out of Yahoo, but they seem to be getting a lot of things right here.

Yahoo intends to monetize the Widgets Channel through advertising, but in an effort to reach a critical mass of users as quickly as possible, will reportedly go easy on the advertising initially.  So who knows, maybe in a few years from now, Yahoo stockholders could actually be thanking Mr. Yang for turning Mr. Ballmer down at $31 per share….

Inspired by Andreas’ post on the comparative online presence of certain politicians, I just checked John McCain’s Facebook account - although it was updated yesterday (1/8/09), the last previous update to his profile was made on August 6th, when he announced a change of his website.  In other words, for almost the last three months of the US presidential campaign, nobody on his staff touched his Facebook profile…

I find that remarkable.

(In contrast, photos of the Obama camp watching the election night results from their hotel room were available online immediately on his still-robust Flickr account…)

If there’s one widely agreed upon fact of life in the still nascent long-form (short-tail) internet video space, it’s that consumers will not tolerate anything close to the advertising density they will for traditional broadcast television:

• A current NBC show on hulu carries roughly ¼ of the advertising that same show broadcast on a terrestrial NBC affiliate carries.

At the same time, online CPM rates are substantially higher than traditional broadcast rates, based on the internet-given ability to target online ads to individual users:

• NBC and hulu can charge over twice the CPM that NBC can charge for broadcast television.

It’s often taken for granted that these two characteristics are both inherent to internet video and even somehow compensatory - yet imagine if we could challenge the first assumption (the relative intolerance for online advertising ): in other words, imagine online video advertising density more in line with that of broadcast video, yet maintaining the higher CPM rates charged for target online advertising…

Now there’s a business model.

How to get internet video consumers to tolerate the amount of advertising tolerated on television, though? To me, the (somewhat obvious) answer is to solve the problem of making the internet video experience itself more comparable to the television experience.

In other words,

I would submit that there’s a direct correlation between the amount of advertising online premium video consumers will tolerate and the fact that (until now) they happen to have been sitting alone in front of a computer at the time– in other words, increase the comfort, ease, and sociability of the experience, and (for better or worse) you can increase the advertising.

Now that’s finally happening, as CE companies start rolling out TV hardware with embedded network interfaces this week in Las Vegas.

Today I read with interest a Will Richmond VideoNuze article questioning whether the current online advertising model will support this new generation of internet-enabled television hardware, and how it might have to change.  What I feel Will misses, though, is that as a result of all this new couch-centric hardware changes the fundamental viewing experience, there will be a commensurate increase in tolerance for advertising on the part of the average internet video viewer.

So as the density of long-form premium internet video advertising approaches that of traditional television yet the online CPM rates remain higher than the effective traditional broadcast rates (because of the internet-only value-add of ad targeting), I feel that the advertising-supported long form short-tail internet video sector has a bright future indeed.