With the IBM and Sun deal we wrote about a few weeks ago now reported to be very close to happening (any minute now…), rumors are starting to swirl about another (somewhat sexier) acquisition:

according to rumor…   google may want twitter

(…and stay tuned for some interesting antitrust issues with the IBM deal – I put the likelihood that one or more parts of Sun end up getting spun off in the process at about 50-50)

CeBIT, held each year in Hannover (Germany), is the biggest technology show in the world.  What makes it larger than CES is that rather than limit itself to consumer electronics, it includes both home and office technology – in other words, all things digital.  I’m not at the show, but having read a few of the articles starting to show up online (the show’s currently running until March 8th), one company stands out as having at least a few good ideas:  Asus.

I’ve already written about how the time is right for netbooks – Asus has a 60% share of the European market and a 30% share of the worldwide market – so they’ve been doing something right.  In addition, the company has some serious plans for bring the Google Android operation system to the netbook.  It’s worth noting that while Android has had the iPhone headwind to fight in the smartphone market, no such incumbant hands-down winner exists in the netbook operating system market.  In fact, with netbooks gaining traction, Android evolving, and a lightweight netbook version of Windows 7 on the horizon, the netbook OS market could prove to be a major front in the epic battle between you-know-who and you-know-who.

But I digress.  Let’s talk some gizmo. At left is an Asus “concept netbook.”   It starts with the tablet computer concept from a few years back and takes it a step or two further – a completely touch screen-based interface, and a second monitor.  Although not yet commercially available, a few thoughts do come to mind:

• The clamshell design nicely solves the problem of maximizing screen real estate while at the same time protecting the portable device’s touch screens.
• To the extent a touch screen Netbook interface becomes popular, XP Home becomes obsolete as a netbook OS, forcing Microsoft’s hand in getting a Windows 7 Netbook OS out there quickly.
• Is this the perfect Kindle platform, or what??



Speaking of touchscreens – here’s an interesting device, looking very much like the result of crossing a computer keyboard with an iPhone.  While adding a touchscreen to a keyboard is a cool enough idea in and of itself (and as the most cost-effective way to enjoy the next generation of touch-enabled operating systems, probably something we’ll see a lot of), there’s more here than meets the eye: this is actually a netbook running XP Home! With an 802.11g wireless interface and a wireless HDMI interface (that’s a new one on me), you’ve yourself got a cable-free internet streaming solution, as well as a computer for the coffee table and the couch.  It’s my feeling users would be more interested in the former than the latter, but either way, a pretty cool device – and another idea that’s hard to imagining not becoming popular.

I know I promised to keep politics off this blog. Do indulge me, though. 

Besides. It’s much more about the (digital) economy than politics.

The White House web site folks replaced YouTube with Akamai as the preferred video delivery platform for the President’s weekly online video address.

What sparked the decision was privacy concerns over how YouTube-embedded video dealt with cookies placed on the devices people used to access the popular White House Web domain.

OK. I get it! But what about the other, much less discussed issue in this context? Money!

Behind the decision to ditch YouTube for Akamai also were complaints that a tax-payer funded government site should not generate free advertising for YouTube and thus Google, the online video giant’s parent company. (The rational being that someone clicking from the White House domain back to YouTube becomes a potentially valuable set of eyeballs against which YouTube can charge advertisers). 

Well, how about this? (All completely hypothetical of course, and somewhat simplified):

YouTube – which for all intents and purposes has solved its cookies issue. Gone is the privacy concern – continues to deliver the President’s video address to the White House site. The nation’s most prominent government Web destination thus drives traffic back to YouTube as it has in the past. 

But this time, this time we go out and actually buy shares in Google stock. (Believe me, it’s cheap right now).

Yes, rather than complaining about taxpayer money being misappropriated by letting www.whitehouse.gov drive free traffic back to YouTube, how about sharing in the financial upside (and risk, I admit) in YouTube’s incremental revenue benefit from my tax-funded arrangement?

Net, net? The White House site would regain an exceedingly capable video partner; one with unparalleled online brand recognition and viral video marketing ability unlike any other video site today. 

And taxpayers? They would have opportunity to realize a potential return on their stock investment transferring right back into their own pockets. (Capital gains tax not withstanding, that is).

Wait! Does this sound too much like a mini version of the current US stimulus plan, bailing out an already lackluster Internet stock with public money?

Is this a (mini) step towards socializing the digital economy – akin to the previous administration’s proposal to let taxpayers (partially) invest their tax-funded social security, with all the inherent risk attached?

Listen, I am just a telco guy. What do I know?

But quite frankly, to me the bigger picture is that the digital economy has grown and prospered best every time we rewarded value (here YouTube’s unique video delivery expertise) and risk (my trust that buying Google stock) will pay off.

Artificially disconnecting any Web site from a quality vendor makes little sense to me.

Besides, wouldn’t we want to see our tax dollars placed where they are likely to generate the highest return?

What’s wrong with that? Especially in this economy.

PS: Yes, I own a handful of Google stock. And no, this post is not a vote against Akamai.

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.

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

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…

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.)

Net Neutrality.  Up to now, the conventional definition of the concept has been that internet service providers shall be prohibited from “blocking or slowing content from some applications or companies” (as quoted from a recent NetworkWorld article).  Arguably, the definitive infraction against this particular notion of Net Neutrality was Comcast’s recent ‘managing’ of Bit Torrent traffic via the insertion of spurious connection reset packets.

However, the whole issue the issue of Net Neutrality (at the last mile between the ISP and the consumer, at least) is rapidly becoming a moot point: in preparation for the expected explosion of demand for longer-form video over IP, most major carriers are now scrambling to assemble and/or acquire proprietary content delivery networks (CDN)s to avoid the ever more congested and unpredictable system of routers out there in the public cloud (a recent post about just what Google, Microsoft, and Verizon are up to can be found here).

So while your neighborhood ISP might maintain a commitment to Net Neutrality itself, the real action is well upstream, as major corporations join already established CDN players such as Akamai, Edge Networks, and Yahoo’s Cloudfront to distribute and/or cache digital media content out along the edge of the cloud, in effect forming competing private mini-clouds to minimize the role of the public internet itself.

Put another way, in the purest sense of the term, Net Neutrality has already become something of an anachronism – not due to any localized slowing down of unfavored packets at the ISP level, but due to a globalized speeding up of favored packets on CDNs, before they ever reach the ISP.   A recent Wall Street Journal article touches on just this nuanced distinction: according to Google, their recent proprietary internet/CDN initiatives “do not rely on the carrier’s unilateral control over the last-mile connections to consumers, and also do not involve discriminatory intent“ – and even the independent public interest organization Public Knowledge (whose directors include internet academic and Obama advisor Lawrence Lessig) now maintains that “caching in no way is a part of the Net Neutrality issue.”

I’m of the opinion there’s considerably more gray area here.  But no matter – since the public internet will simply not scale to meet the anticipated bandwidth demand once short-tail (mainstream) premium digital media over IP becomes widespread, both carriers and content owners will increasingly invest in proprietary content delivery networks – and as consumers buy into the mass-market internet video offerings made possible by these high-performance CDNs, the very concept of Net Neutrality will seem increasingly quaint – and the “internet” as a whole will come to resemble the American health care system: multi-tiered and largely privatized.

So to the extent long-form video over IP ultimately enjoys widespread mass-market success,  the innocent ideal of a truly egalitarian and fundamentally neutral internet is destined to end, no matter what your local ISP’s policies are.

Don’t shoot the messenger…  

I’ve been thinking lately about how business issues (the shifting landscape of allegiances between companies) affects what (and when) technologies become available.

Not for nuthin’ (as they say here in New York) – here are a few thoughts…

no Flash on iPhone’s Safari browser
I think Adobe would be more than happy to write an iPhone Safari Flash player, but Apple is probably hoping the growing number of iPhone users will drive wider adoption of their Quicktime platform for streaming.  More on that here.

no Hulu-iPhone app
OK, so no Flash – but at least we get a bundled YouTube iPhone App that streams via QuickTime – because despite YouTube’s parent Google being behind the competing android smartphone platform, the two companies get along quite well, thank you (witness the iPhone’s rock solid gmail support).   Why not, then, a similar Flash-workaround Hulu iPhone App?  I imagine Hulu would love to see the swelling ranks of iPhone owners use their service (batteries permitting),  but don’t hold your breath: AT&T would have a major problem with that, because of the additonal bandwidth required (the average Hulu program is a lot longer than the average YouTube snippet).  This, by the way, is also the reason you won’t see an approved iPhone App any time soon allowing you to use the camera to shoot rudimentary video – as cool as that would be, AT&T doesn’t want us emailing anything that big around…  (although ‘jailbroken’ apps are out there if you’re brave and/or foolhardy enough to go off the Apple reservation and unlock the thing).

no Disney/Pixar content on Amazon’s ‘Video on Demand’ service
As a result of selling Pixar to Disney in 2004, Steve Jobs became Disney’s largest individual stockholder, and was given a seat on the Disney board.  iTunes video (via Apple TV) happens to compete directly with Amazon Video on Demand (via TiVo and the Sony Bravia).  Although Jobs has described Apple TV as nothing more than a ‘hobby’, could Apple have influenced Disney/Pixar not to play ball with such a direct internet video competitor?

no NBC/Universal content on Sony’s ‘Video Store’ service
NBC/Universal is the only major studio absent from the recently launched Sony Video Store service – since NBC is partnered with Microsoft on MSNBC, could NBC be a little reluctant to sign a deal with Microsoft’s game console arch rival Sony?

I’m just sayin’….

On first glance, the latest Neilsen Online numbers suggest Youtube continued its utter domination of the web video streaming space in September, delivering over 20 times the number of streams delivered by runner-up service Yahoo Video and roughly 35 times the number of streams delivered by Hulu.

But take into account that while the typical Youtube stream averages only 2-4 minutes in running time, the typical full-length TV episode Hulu streams tends to be at least 10 times that length – and that while the ongoing Viacom lawsuit has effectively forced Youtube to remove all unlicensed copyrighted material from its site, Hulu offers more widely appealing current mainstream TV fare.
Then the simple aggregate number of streams delivered starts to make a less illuminating metric.

So, program length and mass appeal – two attributes that fundamentally differentiate Youtube from Hulu.  As it happens, Youtube is moving to address both.

Program Length Although a 10 minute/1GB maximum remains in place for the unwashed masses, this restriction has been removed for a select number of approved Youtube Channel partners.  One such partner is CBS, which is at least sticking a toe in the water by making full-length episodes of vintage shows such as ‘Star Trek’ and ‘MacGyver’ available.  Not exactly ‘The Office’ –  but while (like theWB.com and the Netflix ‘Watch Instantly’ queue) the tentative nature of the move is betrayed by the staleness of the content, it’s interesting to note that major Youtube parner CBS also happens to be the sister company of Youtube’s intellectual property rights nemesis Viacom (CBS and Viacom were spun off from each other in 2005).    What’s also worth noting is that it’s not only full-length TV content Youtube is moving towards – with its Screening Room channel, YouTube is streaming an increasing number of full-length independent films – an entirely new paradigm for the king of short-form video over IP.

Mass Appeal Historically, the prototypical Youtube content provider has been the amateur, uploading self-generated content of the ‘check-out-my-dog-skateboarding’ variety (in other words, amusing stuff but not worth sitting through embedded ads for).  These days, however, the typical Youtube upload is just as likely to come from a corporate entity such as Universal Music Group, the BBC, Britney Spears, or CBS – all of which currently post clips of their proprietary content via dedicated Youtube Channels (with customizable wallpaper, the channels can look almost as individually branded as mySpace, although thankfully less visually chaotic and noisy).
The most-viewed of these channels is in fact run by CBS.

So…  is Youtube looking to compete against Hulu directly?  It would appear so: some CBS clips now contain very Hulu-esque embedded ads – another paradigm shift for Youtube.  With its unrivaled amount of eyeballs, the Google-owned service has already proven to be a potent (and free) promotional resource for the commercial entertianment and advertising industries – so as Youtube now moves from streaming short-form clips and viral videos to long-form/short-tail (mainstream) commercial entertainment, it’ll be interesting to see if their dominance in short-form/long tail (niche) user-generated video will be a factor – and if the non-embedded ad revenue model will give way to more embedded ads.

But for either Hulu or Youtube, one issue remains – the longer the running time of the content, the more necessary it becomes to bridge that pesky 10-yard gap from the home internet access point behind the computer to the television in front of the couch.

Here at digitalmissive, we believe that sooner or later it’s gonna come down to hardware.