A few thoughts on the Bing/Yahoo deal - it’s been about a week now since Carol Bartz decided outsource searches to Microsoft, effectively steering the company away from the technology business and (presumably) more towards the media and content/aggregation business.

For a few years now, the two companies have been attempting to join forces in one manner or another.  How did it finally happen?  Microsoft built a compelling product - their Bing search engine works well, has some interesting features, and has gotten generally good reviews.  The takeaway?  While previous unsuccessful Microsoft attempts to partner with Yahoo! depended on cash as a lever, this successful deal was based on the lever of product quality.

For all involved, I would like to think this would be (to use a currently fashionable buzzword) a “teachable moment”.

Read the rest of this entry »

One of the most daunting technological challenges we face today is scaling up this old internet of ours to meet the burgeoning consumer demand for bandwidth-intensive real-time applications such as telecommuting, cloud computing, and streaming media.

And as internet video continues to trend from short-form/long-tail/low quality content towards long-form/short-tail/high quality (premium) content (i.e. from YouTube to hulu to TV/films on embedded hardware), exploding consumer demand could bring things to a head even more quickly than currently anticipated.
Read the rest of this entry »

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.

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…

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 the eve of the 2009 CES show, perhaps it’s time for a few more thoughts on what should prove to be The Big Story at this year’s show: televisions and set-top boxes with internet access baked in, for direct internet video access.

For the last few years, numerous companies in the ‘computer’ business (on either the hardware or software side) have made repeated attempts to market solutions involving the PC as viable long-form internet video delivery platforms - with little to no success. Lately, though, perhaps enough anthropologists and/or behavioral scientists have been hired to finally convince at least a few of these companies that despite all the bells and whistles, a computer might never be a television after all (as they say in the south, “you can put a brick in the oven, but that don’t make it a biscuit”).

So while certain companies might have enjoyed a substantial technological head start in internet video, through a stubborn insistence on leveraging the home computer, the opportunity was missed. But no matter: here comes the CE industry - as of Thursday in Las Vegas, it’s their market now.

Apple undertook a conscious expansion into the CE industry several years ago with the iPod (in fact, dropping ‘Computer’ from their corporate name) - is it too late for other computer-centric companies to make a similar move? 

The recent Intel/Yahoo initiative is a particularly interesting case in point.  Both companies, as Yahoo Connected TV vice president Patrick Barry poetically puts it, “emerged from the ocean of the PC”.

Intel Intel has been especially forward-thinking regarding the convergence of the home computing and consumer electronics industries for some time now, having launched the Intel Digital Home Group several years ago.  The interdisciplinary Digital Home Group, active in both processor design and standards development, is particularly close to my heart, as it’s made up of social scientists as well as computer scientists.

Yahoo We’ve been pretty hard on Yahoo lately, but they do have some heavy OEM hitters lined up to implement their embedded internet TV ‘widgets’ system: Sony, TiVo, and Samsung. Also worth noting, the Connected TV initiative intends to follow a purely advertising-supported model, and studies routinely show consumers prefer advertising to subscription fees.  Lastly, yet another issue (and one that holds true for all internet video contenders) is the remote: as Netflix CEO Reed Hastings recently noted, a Nintendo Wii-like pointing remote will likely be required as internet-enabled television hardware matures.

At any rate, given their recent setbacks, this could be Yahoo’s last best shot at redemption - so look for them to bet the farm (or “throw the long ball”, for you American football fans) on this one.

Granted, we’re not big Yahoo fans here at digitalmissive - at least not of Yahoo! Mail: recently, several years’ worth of email was lost from Andreas’ personal account, and since early 2007, the search function on mine started returning messages only from the last month or so.   Yahoo’s response to both issues was of the “Known-Issue,-Our-Engineers-Are-Aware-Of-It” variety, but both issues have remained unresolved over the past few months.

Concurrently (as you might have heard), things have gotten a bit bumpy around here economically lately - but for Yahoo the news has been even worse: in October, the company announced the intended layoff of 10% of their workforce by year’s end,  and after turning down a buyout offer from Microsoft earlier this year at $31 per share, today the company’s stock dipped below $10.

Perhaps to entice Microsoft to make another offer (and perhaps to avoid submitting himself to what would’ve been a memorably contentious 2009 shareholder’s meeting), in November CEO Jerry Yang agreed to step down once a replacement can be found.   But despite the imminent departure of the initial $31 offer’s main opponent, and despite Yahoo’s obvious (if somewhat humiliating) interest in winning back the software giant’s affections, Microsoft has not been enticed to return to the table with a reduced offer.

Most recently, Yahoo Senior VP Toby Coppel (head of operations in Europe and Canada) has announced his departure from the company as well (although Yahoo insists Coppel’s decision is unrelated to Yang’s departure and Microsoft’s lack of renewed interest).  While I was admittedly frustrated with Yahoo Mail, it is with no schadenfreude that I witness the company’s troubles - especially not for the 1000+ Yahoo employees to be let go by 2009.  But it is interesting to note that how well a company executes on the small stuff (such as the mail accounts of two guys from New York) often has a way of being predictive of its longer-term prospects.

It’s not clear whether Microsoft’s apparent disinterest in Yahoo is genuine or whether it’s a tactical stance given Yahoo’s continually weakening negotiating position – but either way, as unhappy as Yahoo shareholders must be these days, Microsoft owners should be showing Steve Ballmer the love for walking away at $31…

That’s it. Just like that. One morning you wake up to find most of your emails emptied, gone, vanished - never to be retrieved again.

Well, that just happened to me. But what happened really?

A happy Yahoo! Mail Plus customer since February 2003 - a full five years of my personal emails dissolved into thin air this past week.

A moment of panic ensued. Then I started thinking.

The good news: I discovered that Yahoo! has a toll-free number to call (still relatively untypical for a .com), their customer service rep was exceedingly helpful and to-the-point, without schmoozie upselling attempts and just a minimum number of subservient “we-love-you-Mr.-Customer”.

And yes, I did get my follow-up call the same evening, just as promised.

The bad news: In a heartbeat Yahoo! (accidentally?) removed a full five years of my personal email communications with friends, family and many other folks I care about - only to confirm Yahoo! had forever deleted thousands of my digital messages off their server farms.

To me, that real question behind this unexpected personal data kill: In our hyper-social, interconnected world, what role does our email communication really represent within our personal sphere?

Certainly not as direct and personable as a one-on-one phone call, email is faster to-and-fro sender and recipient than, let’s say, a letter or a fax.

Conversely, email lags the speed of instant messaging and typically is slower than a briefly “spit-out” Twitter-style micro-blog post.

Of course email is searchable. In fact, Yahoo!’s recent free browser update improved my ability to turn scant bits of memory (… didn’t what’s-her-name’s email mention “engagement ads”?) into a series of (mostly relevant) hits.

Try that with past voice mails , letters or faxes received. It will not work.

But did I hold on to years of emails because I really needed to, or simply because I could? 

And what meaning do personal emails occupy in my daily life in terms of actual productivity gains?

Pushed by Google’s competitive Gmail launch, in May of last year, Yahoo! responded by offering “unlimited email storage” capabilities.

At one fell swoop, I was confronted with the pleasures of an all-you-can-eat email depository.

But just because competition got tough on Yahoo!, and storage cost had fallen dramatically, doesn’t really mean myself (or most anyone) actually needed the extra space and ensuing clutter.

Leaves my postmortem analysis with the legal aspect of my involuntary email vanishing act.

In short, a look inside Yahoo!’s service agreement failed to provide detail into the liability aspect of emails lost. (Do I actually have recourse here?).

But then again, it’s too late anyway.

What’s gone is gone, forever in the heavens of the Internet ether.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who keep their ice cube trays filled and those who don’t. (Remember when there were ice cube trays in most freezers?)

So maybe I should update that: are two kinds of people in the world: those who keep their email inbox empty and those who don’t – and I have to admit I’m in the latter demographic.

There, I said it. While my desktops (both physical and digital) are pretty clean (and I like to think that I’m right up there as far as productivity goes), my Yahoo account goes back well into the last century, and my mostly unkempt inbox now has over 9000 emails in it. I know, not exactly best practices – but Yahoo’s recently moved to no limitations on email data storage size, and I’m taking Mr. Yang at his word (and I’ve had clients – Exchange Breakers, I used to call them – with several times that amount of messages in their inboxes).

What made such bad behavior possible was my profound dependence on email search. Since I’m not populating subfolders, I *need* my search functionality – and for several months now, (along with a fair number of other Yahoo users) my email search is broken, only returning matches from the last three weeks or so.

I’ve Googled it - it turns out there are a lot of us out there but not enough to be news-worthy. I’ve sent forms and chats to Yahoo support – I’ve only gotten the generic “this is a known issue, we’ve escalated it” response. If I were paranoid blogger (and I hear that can be a problem out there on these here internets), I could almost convince myself Yahoo is attempting to ‘encourage’ users like me to keep less of our data laying around cluttering up their data centers – but no, I think it’s just another example of the potential downside of having one’s data up the cloud: outages. While what’s happening to me isn’t as scary (or evidently news-worthy) as what happened recently to some Apple MobileMe early adopters (in which the emails were actually lost ).

Cloud computing: collaboration, portability, workstation platform flexibility, lower server and backup costs – a free lunch. That is, until there are host-side issues up there in that cloud. Then the feeling of comfort from having someone in cloud responsible for your data can turn intoa pretty uncomfortable feeling of helplessness, especially when (unlike the Google Apps and Apple MobileMe situations) the issue is not widespread enough to garner media attention and goes unresolved for months.

Meanwhile, I’ve gotten pretty acquainted with that <next> button, having hit it hundreds of times now to page through 9 years’ worth of emails.

Yahoo, thou art bumming me out. Waaah.