Just in case you were wondering - no! d i g i t a l m i s s i v e has not gone into hibernation or is contemplating early retirement. Far from it actually. 

It’s just we’ve all been rather busy with jobs, projects, plus some vacation time here and there, which has caused us to post less than we have since we started this blog in August of last year.

Which brings me to the topic of my (long overdue) post: What happens if a blogger doesn’t blog each and every day? 
Read the rest of this entry »

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.

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.

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….

On Wednesday morning last week, a few more people than usual were probably interested in picking up the morning paper.  However, the New York Times was nowhere to be found at many new stands here in Manhattan.   The new parallel online economy was making itself felt - papers were bought in bulk throughout the city long before rush hour, and now that historic front page can be yours, suitable for framing - Buy It Now for only $99.99.

Similarly, a CNN story this morning aired regarding the online sale of Obama inauguration tickets ,  which are intended to be distributed free of charge through members of the incoming congress (currently, VIP tickets are going for the low five figures).

These two end-runs around the intended distribution mechanism put me in mind of the situation my wife faced earlier this summer when attempting to surprise me with birthday tickets to the much in-demand iMax showing of The Dark Knight during the first week of its release (I know: best. wife. ever.)  It turns out she had been trying to buy them for days via AOL’s Moviefone service , but strangely the tickets (released in maximum lots of 5) were constantly sold out: regardless of how often (or when) she checked, there were just never any tickets available - for that particular movie, the AOL site was essentially broken.  She then checked craigslist and found out where all those tickets went: a thriving business in (drastically marked-up) iMax Batman tickets.  ‘Entrepreneurs’ were grabbing all tickets within seconds of release and were reselling them on craigslist for 3 to 4 times the original price - depending on your point of view, either a complete hijacking of the system by a unnecessary additional layer of middleman, or a shining example of capitalism at its finest.

To someone who’s just paid $80 for two tickets to a movie, it seems more the former - although of course, with the power and convenience of the internet comes the occasional disruptive gaming of the system - so chances are, this kind of thing will be with us for a while.

I still like my internet.

The New York Times has discovered (or rediscovered) thin computing: a small simple device (or ‘terminal’) with just enough under the hood to send mouse & keyboard clicks to a server doing absolutely everything else.  Initially hyped as a challenge to Microsoft’s domination of the workplace desktop, the concept had its 15 minutes as The Next Big Thing a few years back, only to fall from favor due to network performance issues (while it’s acceptable if an application’s a teensy bit slower over the network, sluggish mouse and key response is a non-starter for most users).

But look at the advantages, though: rather than a $1000 workstation with Windows and Office installed, we’re talking about a simple paperback-sized box and monitor for $400, all in.  Granted, MS Terminal Server (and especially Citrix) licenses do cost, but on the other hand consider that there’s no fan noise, no hard drive failures, no long boot-up time, no virus susceptibility, no user-installed malware, space savings, power consumption savings – the list goes on and on.

And I speak from experience – several years ago, as the network administrator for a small business with half a dozen retail and office locations spread across  the country, I moved a good portion of my remote users to these devices.  This not only solved my problem of how to install and maintain remote these workstations, my client (who was growing quickly at the time) loved the immediate savings compared to the workstations they had been buying (even taking the cost of terminal server licenses into account).  I was a hero; life was good (in a keep-the-trains-running job like network administration, you tend to savor those win-win moments). 

While I chose devices from Wyse, as the NY Times article points out, thin client computing is becoming The Next Big Thing all over again - so there are more and more manufacturers out there.  So many, in fact, that it begs the question:

What about the home market?

What I’m getting at is the return of the web appliance.  Like thin clients, this is another concept from a few years back that never quite took off – the only difference being the addition of an onboard web browser of some sort (maybe the well-received Opera browser, since Sony is already embedding that into its new Internet Video Link hardware).  Because in a world of Hulu, Flickr, and Google Docs (services which, unlike Windows Terminal Server or Citrix, are generally free), a simple little box with a browser and a handful of drivers for peripherals would about do it for a lot of folks, wouldn’t it?

Clearly, cloud computing is The Next Big Thing now – at least Google thinks so, and Microsoft thinks so too.   The potential reliability and privacy issues of cloud computing might be a little easier to take if one also imagines potential upside of being able to radically simplify things for the home user.

So thin computing is back. Who knows, maybe the time is finally becoming right again for the web appliance too; maybe the browser is the new operating system.

How much traction is online digital distribution gaining?  Look at what’s going on these days vis à vis DVD release windows…

Hancock Several months ago, Sony crossed a line when it announced it would be releasing the Sony Pictures/Will Smith vehicle “Hancock” over the internet (exclusively to the Sony Internet Video Link device) prior to the DVD release date of November 25.  A good move on Sony’s part: leveraging their unique position as one of the six major film studios and a major CE manufacturer to help drive sales of their new video over IP hardware.

Wall-E At the time, I wondered if there might be similar synergy (remember that word?) in an exclusive release of Pixar’s “Wall-E” exclusively to iTunes/Apple TV before the DVD release, given the close Disney-Apple relationship (when Disney acquired Pixar from Steve Jobs, he became Disney’s largest individual shareholder and was given a seat on the Disney board of directors).   As it happens, Disney/Pixar is planning to release “Wall-E” to Apple TV concurrently with the DVD release, on November 18th  (and will do the same for “The Incredible Hulk” on Ocotber 21st).

The Office On the TV front, last month the well-received Fox/NBC-Universal initiative Hulu announced the online availability of several NBC shows’ 2008 season premiers (including flagship comedy “The Office”) prior to their air dates.  I thought this was a particularly bold move, and was frankly surprised by the relatively little press attention it received (see my take on Virginia Heffernan’s theWB.com article here).

Iron Man Sony Pictures and Disney have obvious options for hardware partnerships (Sony and Apple, respectively), but what’s a Paramount to do?  Enter Dell: the two companies have just announced that for an extra $20, Dell customers can now have the Paramount summer hit (along with bonus footage) pre-loaded onto the hard drives of newly ordered Dell machines.  But while watching a sitcom on the computer is (marginally) acceptable, what about longer-form content such as movies?   Um, no.  Not gonna happen, at least not on any meaningful scale.

For that, you need two additional specialized pieces of hardware:      a television.     and a couch.

Dell Fact 1: Dell and Paramount know the limitations of movie-watching on a PC.   Fact 2: Dell also makes televisions.  It all adds evidence to the rumors of Dell rolling out even more CE hardware and (drumroll…) an iTunes-like service at some point in the future…. but to do that, Dell will have to do two things: retool its workplace-centric brand, and hire some new product design talent  (because I’m not sure Dell understands the benefits of simplicity).

Just read David Pogue’s recent article on the Vudu set-top IPTV box with interest, as I’ve been doing some research writing on just this subject recently.

A good first-hand user-level review of the device - however, he neglects to mention the really unique thing about Vudu, which is the peer to peer data transfer model.  Why is this so important?  Because residential internet connections are heavily optimized for downstream performance at the expense of upstream - and when I say heavily, I mean heavily (downstream speeds can easily be five to six times faster than upstream). The thinking (correct, as it happens, until recently) is that most users are browsing web pages and streaming youtube from centralized servers (downstream traffic) rather than hosting any meaningful amount of data (upstream traffic). Not so with peer to peer technology, wherein each client is also a data host (or mini-server, if you will) visible to all the other clients using the system at the time.

So to the extent Vudu becomes popular, it’s going to impact the residential ISP’s soft white underbelly, their Achilles heel - upstream bandwidth.  As an indication of just how concerned residential ISPs are about this kind of thing, one need only look at Comcast, who was caught inspecting packets and secretly resetting clients’ BitTorrent connections to slow down the upstream traffic (and is currently appealing the resulting FCC fine).

So if Vudu hits big, we ain’t seen nothing yet - the potential success of the device portends quite the Net Neutrality showdown.

Wow.  Wow in italics.  That’s how the NY Times’ Virginia Heffernan recently described the availability of vintage Warner’s/WB Network content on the recently launched thewb.com.  And we’re talking vintage: ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’, ‘Felicity’, ‘Friends’, ‘MadTV’ – shows many years out of production.  Although a very limited amount of fresh programming is also promised, to the extent the site is primarily about exploiting Warner’s more stale content as fully as possible (and from a quick visit to the site, it sure looks that way), I would disagree with Ms. Heffernan.

Strangely, the article fails to even mention hulu.com, the NBC/Fox joint venture that predates thewb.com by about a year and a half now.  And not only was hulu first on the scene - it’s also more noteworthy for being a joint venture between two broadcast competitors, for offering a wide selection of current broadcast content, and for making several NBC shows available before their fall 2008 premieres.

Add to that the fact that Comedy Central has been making its current content (including ‘The Daily Show’) available online imediately the morning after airing for months now, and it becomes clear that theWB.com is not exactly wow-worthy – on the contrary, the exclusion of current broadcast content and the general age of what is available on the site indicates something of a hedged bet on the part of Warner’s.

In any event, hulu.com would have been the service to write about.

I imagine professionals in any field wince when they see their field covered incompletely or misleadingly in the general media, but Ms. Heffernan’s article misses a more major point: any Flash Player/browser-based video over IP solution (even those offering content from this century) will ultimately be limited by its dependence on the PC – because when it comes to content much longer than the 90-second long tail videos we all snack on from youtube, what’s commonly known as ‘watching TV’ is (and will continue to be) done in front of a coffee table, not a desk.  That’s not to say the paradigm shift to video over IP is not inevitable and already well underway - it is.  But what it’s first going to take is an innovative hardware solution to get that television onto the home network (either a dedicated set-top box or an Ethernet-enabled TV, DVR, or DVD player).  Only then will video over IP services (even the more viable ones such as hulu.com) have the opportunity to really change the game.