Germany’s Rhine Valley, 1439: the movable type printing press comes to western Europe, making the renaissance (and much of what came after) possible.

It took over 500 years for another technology to come along with that kind of impact on the dissemination of information and knowledge, but here we are, in the age of the internet - and Google is now working with several major libraries to digitize their collections through its Google Books Library Project and make them available online via one free terminal at any library that requests one.  The company has also reached a tentative settlement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers concerning compensating the copyright holders, and in June the settlement goes up for approval by the US District Court of New York.  Carefully reviewing such a complicated issue can be a lengthy process, to be sure - but to the extent one believes in the judgment and impartiality of the courts to assess any public interest  issues,  the system would appear to be working (so far at least) - right?

Not so to Robert Darnton, director of the Harvard Library, who in a recent New York Times Review of Books article and in a recently NPR interview laments that it was Google and not the government that undertook the digitizing process.  Darnton expresses concern over what he describes as the “wizardry” of the internet making it possible for one private entity to gain a monopoly over the printed word, and is of the opinion that in terms of copyright law,   “Congress got it better in 1790 than in 1998.”

A few thoughts:

• It’s the individual libraries’ prerogative as to whether or not to opt in to the Google project -  of course, Harvard is free to decline to make their impressive collection available for scanning.
• Similarly, the copyright fee settlement itself concerns only Google and the copyright holder organizations - if academic library directors were not offered a seat at the table for a business negotiation that didn’t directly involve them, is that necessarily a sign of conspiracy?
• Having arrived at a copyright fee settlement, it’s important to remember that it’s still not a done deal - it remains subject to a thorough hearing an an open court of law this June.  I would hope any valid issues raised by Darnton (or any other concerned citizen, for that matter) concerning the public good would be duly considered and debated at that point.
• As to the threat to the traditional library, it’s very likely the project will increase visitor traffic - and if some people will have some time on their hands as they wait their turn at the one computer, that would seem to be a perfect scenario for traditional book browsing and borrowing (ironically, the banks of multiple Google computers Darnton feels each library is entitled to would ultimately be far more threatening to the traditional library model).
• Lastly, what the Google venture promises is nothing less than access to the immense “long tail” of  five centuries’ worth of the printed word.  To the extent one is of the opinion that information tends to want to be free, the Google initiative is just part of an ongoing larger natural progression - a disruptive progression, to be sure, but one sometimes difficult to manage or thwart.

Personally, I like paper - I don’t think Kindles or computers will ever become my personal ‘medium of choice’ for reading.   However, I do look forward to the option of accessing that otherwise inaccessible long tail.  Granted, there are monopoly concerns, and it’s not going to be a trivial issue to build in the necessary safeguards - but let’s not risk paralysis by (to paraphrase the very Google-searchable Voltaire) making the perfect the enemy of the good.  Let’s figure it out.

The basis of Darnton’s arguments have to do with the commercial nature of  Google, but would he prefer that the Google/library project be absolutely free?  Again, one can easily imagine that if it were , the treat to the traditional library model would only be only that much greater (and it’s also worth noting that putting information under state funding and control is no simple panacea either - ask China).

In any event, will the library’s role as gatekeeper change?  Yes, but that’s unavoidable - and the fact of the matter is that the wizardry of the internet, much like the wizardry of the printing press before it (which incidentally made libraries themselves possible), is going to be with us for quite a while.

Every now and then I come across a great website.  For example, consider The Computer History Museum (located in some area of California called “Silicon Valley” of all places), which has one terrific set of online exhibits.  In particular, the History of the Internet is worth a look, if only to remind ourselves of the humble origins of (and the people responsible for) the immense packet-switched beast we now rely on for buying airline tickets, getting jobs, and finding love.

I mean, look at this cover illustration from Computing Magazine circa 1979 - how dated and yet how prescient is that?

Televisions and set-top boxes with embedded network interfaces are coming, that much is agreed upon.  What’s up for discussion, though, is just what the user interface is going to look like - an “internet video-only” implementation that places a premium on simplicity and system stability, or a full-featured “browser for the couch” allowing full unrestricted access to the internet.

Gordon Campbell, a 30+ year veteran of the semiconductor design and marketing industry with stints at Honeywell, Motorola, Intel, and several start-ups under his belt, calls the former approach “hogwash.”   According to a recent article, his current company Personal Web Systems (no web site yet)) plans to bring a device to market later this year allowing full unrestricted access to the web (the company also has plans to subsequently offer that same functionality to CE manufacturers on a single chip).

“This generation doesn’t want their hands tied behind their backs. They want the same experience as with a PC (on their TV)“, Campbell states.

I think he is precisely wrong.

Television web browsing has been tried many times before, with little or no success - and although today’s increased broadband penetration and (more text-friendly) HD screen resolutions suggest perhaps it’s time again to make yet another pass at it, the bottom line is that average folks just do not want a lean-forward PC experience on their TV, thank you very much.  And even if they did, there would be user input device issues to solve (keyboard on your coffee table, anyone?), challenging security issues to deal with,  and (in contrast with computer users), zero tolerance for crashes and restarts.

I could go on and on - but in short, I feel it’s a mistake to assume that internet access necessarily dictates a full PC/web browser paradigm - for example, consider twitter, skype, IM, even iTunes - all examples of succesful non-browser/non-PC dependent internet applications, none of which “this generation” would consider “hogwash”.

Once you explain to them what the word “hogwash” means, that is.  

To sum up, the consumer electronics industry has discovered the internet - and these new devices are not going to need (or look anything like) a PC or a web browser.

For better or worse, the TCP/IP protocol (and the internet it makes possible) will not remain the exclusive turf of the computer industry for very much longer - a point some in the industry are slow to see.

What’s going on? 

Of the ten or so people sitting immediately around me on the New York subway from 14th to Wall Street, an impressive seven riders actually read a book!

Yes, actually reading hard and soft cover books, one page at a time, without the help of an iPod, or Kindle, or any other digital hand-held device.

Although completely anectodal (and statistically irrelevant, I know), behind my impromptu mini sample of “analog” readership, is there more than meets the eye?

Hey, it’s probably just a push back by a few, against the omnipresent popularity of overly slick and shinny digital rich media players packaged in 21st century form factor and UI.

Or maybe it is a case of “it’s the economy, stupid”.

People reading relatively inexpensive physical books today may be an indicator that previously released Zunes and iPods are now considered way to pricy.

My money, though, is on a different point: My seven fellow straphanges have either re-discovered the age-old value proposition of printed paper, or never actually abandoned their love for it.

To them I guess, when reading a real book, the tactile experience is unqiue and remains unmatched compared to any digital e-reader counterparts.

There’s also a certain emotional bind to turning pages manually, one by one. 

Oh, and if you are into dog-ears, try that with an Amazon Kindle - can’t be done.

Long story short, companies have long started working on e-paper and e-readers to recreate similar effects, but none seemed to have cracked the code on sufficiently simulating the organic experience of holding and reading an actual book. 

Until there is a similarly satisfying “touch and feel” reading experience with e-reading devices, I’d like to assume my seven subway mates probably are the equivalent of vinyl record fans amidst a sea of DVD owners.

Nothing major. Nothing to be concerned about. It’s interesting though, as the e-reader industry seems to still have ways to go.

PS: For those of you interested in “the latest and greatest” innovation in e-books, e-reading, and the like, check out these items:

In case you missed the first one, Amazon Kindle II is coming out

Amazon to offer e-books on Apple devices

Sony going next-gen with its own e-Reader, too

The bookworm project now supported by O’Reilly

Stanza, a prominent e-reader iPhone app

Google Books now officially online

Samsung has genuine interest in actual e-paper

The trend is unmistakable: the consumer electronics industry has discovered the internet, and activities that have until now always involved a “computer” (such as internet video viewing and mobile internet access) will be increasingly done using a new generation of leaner and meaner dedicated CE devices instead.  This is all well and good: arguably, the modern home computer – more flexible and powerful but also more complicated and (let’s face it) maintenance-intensive than ever – is clearly overkill for such activities.  But as the computer justifiably loses the battle to convince us it’s also a CE device, CE devices are in turn left to grapple with an issue of their own: how much and how best to emulate the computer.

I’m talking software deployment.  You buy a computer, it includes a license for an operating system, and you’re free to go and install whatever software (or malware) you want - in other words, “you buy it, you break it” (in a way, an inversion of the “Pottery Barn rule ” invoked by Colin Powell over the war in Iraq).  But what about a smartphone, or that internet-enabled television you’ll be buying within the next year or two?  While the availability of a rich selection of high quality 3rd party applications is in the best interest of both the device maker and the user, a wide open ”no guard-rails” software deployment policy is in both parties’ worst interest: poorly written applications can harm both the user  as well as the brand, and (news flash) the average home user is a lot less interested in taking on that kind of responsibility than many companies in the computer industry have ever really understood.

For their upcoming line of internet-enabled televisions, Yahoo/Intel have addressed the issue by going with a “widget” rather than “application” model: lightweight software running on a JavaScript engine rather than the OS itself.  Taking another approach, Apple (which in terms of revenue has been a CE company with a side business in computers for a while now) has come up with the iTunes App Store: applications for the iPhone (and likely for the Apple TV in the near future) are installed on the OS itself, but must be first vetted by (and subsequently purchased through) Apple.  This offers the best of both worlds: the developer base for the device is virtually unlimited, but nothing’s going to break, and apps are guaranteed to be secure.  In fact, the “app store” model is currently being imitated by other smartphone makers such as Nokia because it’s been so successful and popular with users.

Well, 98% of us, that is – there’s also a growing geek subculture out there that believes they have the right to do whatever they want to with something they’ve purchased, thank you very much – and they’re dedicated to removing the iPhone’s software restrictions - “jailbreaking”, as it’s called.  Although the practice is in direct violation of the iPhone EULA (software license agreement), it’s gotten so widespread now that a Google search of “jailbreak” and “iPhone” currently yields 3.6 million results -and so the two sides (the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Apple) are set to face off this spring.

Apparently, this dispute is subject to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act , originally meant to fight piracy of copyrighted “works” such as film and music – therefore, it will ultimately fall upon those famously tech-savvy folks at the Library of Congress to decide the issue.  A case can be made for either side – but although I have to admit I’d love the ability to put my iPhone on a network that covers the NYC metro area better than AT&T , I tend to side with Apple on this one – not only because I feel the iPhone EULA puts them on a pretty strong legal footing, but also because I feel that it’s “good and right” to treat software for CE devices differently than software for computers.

One thing is for certain, though – just as developers will continue to write great App Store applications for Apple, others will continue to hack open the system.  What’s unknown is whether Apple go to the length of actually suing users – a tactic that didn’t work very well for the RIAA .

We’ve written before on how ill-suited the personal computer is for viewing long-form internet video - and on the strange inability one often finds in the personal computing industry (and in a lot of new media analysis) to distinguish between how a 2 minute YouTube video and last week’s full episode of Lost are actually consumed.  The point is not lost on the CE industry, though: there will be a deluge of internet-enabled video hardware coming to market within the next 6-9 months (both televisions and set-top boxes), and while the few devices already out there (i.e. Apple TV, Vudu, and Roku) have all been based on closed “walled-garden” models, this new generation of hardware will instead be open, offering the promise of access to multiple internet video sources directly from the couch.

Which begs the question: what should the user interface for a system that aggregates multiple (and often competing) video services look like?  Clearly, a wide-open web browser model isn’t the appropriate solution for what is, after all, a consumer electronics device.

From an application design perspective, it’s an interesting question. Although I’ve already written about the approach Yahoo/Intel are taking with their Connected TV initiative, last week I had the opportunity to speak with Bob Poniatowski of TiVo regarding their upcoming internet video solution (currently in beta testing).  Two things I took away from our chat: (1) TiVo continues to place a substantial premium on UI design and ease of use, and (2) they’ve determined that focusing on a searching (rather than browsing) model neatly solves the problem of how to integrate multiple internet video services into a single cohesive user experience.  In fact, the name of the initiative (to be rolled out later this year as an additional feature on existing Series 3 and HD boxes) is “TiVo Search” - as CEO Tom Rogers puts it, “what Google did for the Internet, TiVo is now doing for the TV”.

It’s all about the search: users will be able to look for short-form content from sources such as YouTube, The N.Y. Times, and The Onion (among others).  As for premium content, if you have an account  with Amazon VOD, CinemaNow, or Netflix, you’ll enter a TiVo PIN on the respective website and be good to go.  However, one caveat: searching on Netflix is not yet supported - like the  Roku device, only whatever “Watch Instantly” titles already added to the Netflix queue via their website are available.

As an example, search “No Country for Old Men”, and you’ll be able to compare, purchase, and view the title from either Amazon or CinemaNow if you have accounts there (TiVo transparently handles any transactions).  You’ll also get reviews and related articles (from the N.Y. Times, for example), and from Youtube, you’ll get trailers, clips and fan raves/rants (Poniatowski likens the YouTube content to that of a “global DVD Extras menu”).  Search Tommy Lee Jones and you’ll get bio information, any other available films and/or television programs he’s appeared in, and again, any related short-form and user-generated content.

In addition, TiVo Search will include a (very TiVo-like) internet video “Discovery Bar” of suggestions based on your previous searches, and will also allow you view images from any computers on your home network… all in all, it’s easy to imagine this being pretty cool.

Things to watch:

• How will TiVo’s subscription revenue model compare to Yahoo/Intel’s Connected TV advertising-supported model?
• How will TiVo’s traditional in-house software development/deployment model compare against the Yahoo/Intel Connected TV “widget” model (and/or Apple TV’s App Store model)?
• When will Netflix “Watch Instantly” content become searchable too?
• Will TiVo expand into the lower end of the IPTV market by releasing a more affordable streaming-only (no HD, no DVR) device to compete with devices such as the Roku?  Having already done the heavy lifting of implementing the search system together, this would seem an likely move.

All in all, this looks to be a powerful and (as one would expect from TiVo) a well-designed long-form internet video solution.  Although TiVo’s market share has been under pressure from lower cost carrier-bundled DVRs in recent years, TiVo Search could be just the differentiating value-add the company’s looking for.

This caught my attention, only because it’s the first time I’ve seen it: yahoo! sports is now syndicating content from youtube…

hmmm.

A little recent history: in an “if-you-can’t-beat-’em-join-’em” move, last year yahoo! had planned to outsource a major part of its paid search results business to google, until google walked away due to antitrust concern.  Other than that short-lived attempt to do business together, though, the two companies are competitors on several fronts:  search, email, and yes, video.

Well, maybe “competitors” is too strong a word, at least in the short-form online video space - google’s youtube has of course largely marginalized all other short-form video websites out there (maybe you’ve heard).

But so much so that yahoo! sports is now linking to youtube for video content?

Two ways to look at this: on one hand, not a great sign for the yahoo! video brand - but on the other, perhaps this level of cross-syndication is healthy…