ROKU VS. BOXEE

The proposed expansion of media providers Boxee and Roku present an example of technological convergence at it’s finest. Brad Stone of the New York Times recently took a look at both companies to examine what we can expect from each in the near future. Interestingly enough, each company is branching out into it’s competitors world and, like in summer blockbuster classics Alien vs. Predator or Freddy vs. Jason, sparks may fly.

The Roku system presently consists of a small internet ready device, costing around $100, being hooked into the television set and thus bringing the internet to the small screen. Boxee on the other hand is a program that, when downloaded onto a laptop or PC, would aggregate video and other forms of content together, later streaming it to the TV via a hardware hook-up. Boxee focuses on amateur generated content. Using mostly Youtube and Google Video as well even allowing public uploads much like the sites mentioned above. Roku on the other hand streams exclusively TV and movies, gathering the majority of it’s material from Netflix.

Earlier in the week Roku announced the launch of several channels streaming from amateur generated video sites (Blip TV as the primary example used), in the hopes of becoming a larger player in the web video field. Ironically, within a day of Roku’s announcement, Boxee also released a statement hinting at further convergence. It hopes to put out a physical “box” similar to those offered by Zillion TV or Roku itself. Both companies, along with many others in the industry, recognize the looming boom that Web TV is going to be, and consequently everyone is rushing to scoop up as much of everything they can get their hands on.

What does this mean for the consumer? Well, for sure there will be no shortage of choice when we decide which company we want to use for our future media viewing, it will just be a matter of which system will provide us with the content and price tag best suited to our interests. With all the competition, squabbles and frantic convergence leading up to the day when we all view web content through our TVs, it would not be a surprise to see tactics used from any famous “VS. films” from the major players involved in these times of unbelievable competition.

-A Murata

China bans physical punishment for Internet addicts

Decision comes months after a boy was beaten to death at an Internet boot camp.

Woah woah… hold it a minute.. Internet boot camp?

Internet repression is considered more extensive and more advanced than in any other country in the world. The regime not only blocks website content but also monitors the internet access of individuals. As most of us are aware, the internet censorship in China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations.

That being said, China believes that in order to wean teens off the net it was necessary to use physical violence. However, it took a tragic event to make them realize that this type of enforcement was ludicrous.  It was China’s Ministry of Health that came to that conclusion months after a 15 year old boy was beaten to death at an Internet boot camp.

“Chinese parents have turned to more than 200 organizations offering treatment for Internet “disorders” as the government increasingly warns of unhealthy Internet habits among the young.”

These so called boot camp have a military atmosphere where the teens are forced into physical labour and drills, as they see it this is to replace the time they spend online. The use of these harsh military like camps, is to cure these patients of their “internet addiction” this is a widely use term perhaps to calm the worried parents that are making these camp a blossoming business.

“When intervening to prevent improper use of the Internet, we should … strictly prohibit restriction of personal freedom and physical punishments,”

the ministry said in a draft guideline for Internet use by minors, posted on its website. These camps were apparently even using electroshock therapy as a treatment for Internet addiction, early this summer before it was also banned. This hole idea seems very old fashion, the procedure, which dates back to 1938. Haven’t we progress from a time where we needed to use ridiculous methods for problems that could be handle differently? Apparently not.

However, at lease an intervention has been made in hopes to urge the target people to use the Internet in a healthy way. Which I find ironic considering they are using unhealthy interventions to do so.

– Maxine

Clicker.com

Shiny new search engine Clicker.com was launched this morning as reported in the LA Times. Clicker operates much like any other directory on the web – users type in their query and within a second are staring at a multitude of possible links to related content. One subtle difference is that Clicker will only bring you video responses. A site like this speaks volumes of the HUGE demand for video content as well as the amount of time we spend watching video on the internet. Presently, there are several similar sites to Clicker, but again what sets the day’s newest search engine apart is the focus on legal content only, a step that, down the road, could make it a legitimate player in the internet-TV conglomeration situation presently underway. “Clickers” can find anything from live musical performances, to full episodes of past and present TV shows, to popular amateur produced content from Youtube. Clicker is also currently working on apps for the iphone and, to be sure many big things in preparation for Web TV conglomeration.

I, although claiming no psychic ability or the possession of a crystal ball, can see Clicker becoming huge. When thinking about the TV-Web phenomenon soon to hit popular culture, I had always wondered about navigation. How would we find content? Would a keyboard and mouse be new appendages of the television? Clicker will at least take the work out of surfing through hundreds of web sites to find a certain musical performance, speech or episode. It will also centralize a large chunk of content making it, if nothing else, a sort of “go-to” source for video as google is for search. I actually took the site for a spin earlier and found a lot of cool things; animations, live performances, music videos and such. At this point, Youtube would still be my first choice for video searching, however there main potential for Clicker is the ability to host entire TV show catalogues. Clicker is definitely something to keep an eye out for.

-A. Murata

Google bets big on mobile advertising in $750-million acquisition of AdMob

 

   Google is setting the tone for the future and placing its faith in mobile advertising with the recent purchase of AdMob, pronounced David Sorno in his article. The $750 million dollar deal to obtain the mobile web advertiser is one of Google’s biggest thus far.

   The quantity of mobile advertising has been increasing at an alarming rate as smart-phones and other similar internet capable mobile devices have become part of the mainstream. These phones allow for graphic and text advertisements to be easily conveyed, and the enhanced technology also allows ads to be much more innovative and effective.

   AdMob is a serious promoter of their product, that being mobile advertising, and is a leader in reporting on the industry. “In a recent report, AdMob said that the number of mobile ads it served had increased nearly 540% from September 2007, to 10.2 billion per month from 1.6 billion.” This data would seem extraordinarily convincing, but the source must be considered. The report was conducted by AdMob itself, and this fact must make the receiver of the data at least a little wary of its accuracy and credibility. Most likely the data is correct, but considering that it plays a major factor in the viability of AdMob’s business it should be taken with a grain of salt. Adding to this caution is the statement that “AdMob was founded in 2006 by Omar Hamoui, a Web entrepreneur looking to generate traffic for his mobile-based website.” The explicit purpose of this company was simply to garner interest in the owner’s mobile websites. AdMob’s clients have included the likes of Ford, Coca-Cola, Electronic Arts and Paramount Pictures. With such high profile clients large amounts of financial backing were needed as the company started out, and it received it from venture capital investors such as Sequoia Capital, Accel Partners and Northgate.

   Analysts predict that as consumers become more familiar with using phones, which are increasingly internet friendly, functions like searching the web, instant messaging, and playing games, will provide numerous and growing occasions for advertising. This is something companies like Google hope to capitalize on.

   Google’s decision to acquire AdMob is based on their observation that “the number of searches performed by Smartphone users has increased by a factor of five over the last two years, led primarily by iPhone users and owners of Google Android phones.” With more internet capable phones on the verge of hitting the market including many Google powered phones, and others such as the Verizon Droid, this acquisition would seem to make sense. Combine this with the stat that “marketer spending on mobile advertising is growing at 30% annually,” the deal looks like a good prediction by Google.

   An issue which Google now expects to have to deal with is regulation. Because Google owns a major stake in mobile advertising with its DoubleClick Mobile unit, and now is attempting to gain more control of the industry with AdMob, convergence is a word that instantly rears up. Although Google expects the deal to receive much scrutiny, the forecast is for it to go through in a few months time.

-D.Cress

The Cloud.

This sounds like it could work. As reported by the Globe and Mail, a new way in which to enjoy music is on the horizon, one which consumers and producers alike may both be able to stomach. Traditionally, the conveyance of music has been in two fundamentally different ways. Either passively, through radio, or other push mediums in which content is brought directly to the listener, or actively via a pull medium like itunes, a CD or an mp3 player, systems that allow for content customization and choice. There are advantages and faults voiced against both methods, however with the conceptual “Cloud” system, it may be possible to combine the best from both worlds. Cloud would work like a genetic mutation of itunes mixed with satellite and traditional radio. Here, all music files, every song from every artist from every performer EVER, would be stored on a central data base. People could simply “tune” into the system through any number of devices, a radio, ipod, computer, car stereo and receive music either for a monthly fee or free with commercials. Sounds familiar. But what makes the future of Cloud so bright is the unlimited potential for customizability. Listeners can have a Cloud library, Cloud playlists or listen to a record front to back just like on itunes, but all streaming from the central data base. This way no one “owns” music and no one is stealing anymore. Of course along with any new system will come new hacks and new ways to pirate content. The sympathizers for Cloud insist however, that the ease and convenience of the system will both be a lure to customers and a deterrent for pirates. “Clouding” would eliminate the need to go out and physically find a record or take the time to locate and pirate files. Why work when you could just “Cloud it?” There is no definite release date for Cloud at this time, but it is a concept garnering much excitement from fans of music and those in the business alike.

For sure this is off topic from the usual subject of this blog, however it is a story that garnered my attention as soon as I started reading. The Cloud concept is quite a revolution if you really think about it. It is a combination of both the major ways in which we enjoy music, making the transition to a pay model easy for the public while allowing the companies supplying content to easily shift methods. Win, win. This platform could easily be adapted to TV and movie streaming as well without too much foreseeable difficulty, perhaps something to watch out for in the near future.

-A. Murata

Best Buy: iTunes of the Movies?

As seen in the Vancouver Sun, electronic giant Best Buy hopes to launch a movie streaming store in the mold of itunes. The company announced it’s partnership with up start movie streamer Roxio and Sonic Solutions as building block for this new enterprise. Best Buy has not released a date for the coming project, however in the light of internet television connections becoming standard in 2010, it should be within the next year or two. Best Buy’s advantage is their hold on the TV retail industry. The Sonic Box could be bought directly with the Television set, it could even be included in package deals directly at purchase. Like other similar systems, users will be able to purchase, rent and enjoy content directly through a television set connected to the internet.

With this announcement, Best Buy is putting itself in a strong position for the coming technological convergence of internet TV. It is a smart move made even better by the company’s status as a popular retail media outlet. Best Buy has a direct advantage as they can sell their product in their own stores. It is too early to know whether the Sonic Box will be success, however at this time it looks like a solid concept both in functionality and profitability. In the next few years, perhaps we will be buying all or movie related media streaming through the the TV, with this in mind Best Buy is making a very smart move.

-A. Murata

Amazon Video vs. Netflix: Which Will Prevail?

Amazon VS. Netflix: and the Roku arena

   Amazon or Netflix, who will come out on top? That’s the question Brad Stone of the New York Times is looking for an answer to. It comes down to pay model structure, Netflix offering a month’s subscription to all their movies and TV programs for 8 dollars, while Amazon charges 2- 3 dollars per view of their movies and shows.

   The Catalyst Group, which looks into how technology is used, based in New York attempted to gain insight into possible answer to this question with a study involving extensive interviews with 11 people in August. These 11 people were introduced to the Roku player, a set top device costing roughly $99 which allows internet access to both Netflix and Amazon video on demand through the user’s television set.

   Nick Gould, the chief executive at Catalyst described the most surprising finding that participants in the study were unaware that such technology existed to allow them instant access to a large catalogue of programs. “They were shocked that this is something you can do. Early adopters aside, the availability of a service like this is still not universally known,” Mr. Gould stated.

   With this finding, the choice between Netflix and Amazon Video came down to the expectations and uses of customers. Netflix and its set monthly subscription rate for both mail DVD and internet content service, won out with habitual movie viewers, while Amazon capitalized on the familiarity of customers with the pay per view model.

   Although users had different views on which service was better, their main criticisms of both were unanimous. The necessity to swap from computer to TV to set up and manage “watch instantly” queues in terms of Netflix or activate video with Amazon. The separation between TV and PC, even with the Roku player, and the difficulty with search and settings features are the detriment to both services. Mr. Gould sums up the feelings of the studies participants saying: “The parties were unanimous in their wish that more of the experience be away from the computer, people are expecting and really preferring a simpler, more straightforward experience that doesn’t involve the PC.”

   This desire for separation of PC and TV can also be seen in a different light as simply a desire for a much more efficient and easy to use integration of PC and TV. It sheds light on the fact that while watching TV and movies on computers is becoming increasingly popular, the TV has a place. People still want to be able to sit in front of the large screen in a comfortable living room to watch their favourite shows, it is simply the way of getting access to the show that is changing. Netflix and Amazon are major parts of this change, and are engaged in competition for the largest customer base. They each have proponents with differing views, but both services have a common disapproval which they need to overcome, bring the easy to use internet to the big screen.

-D. Cress

Web ads that learn from you

Mark Milian of the Los Angeles Times discusses the latest features of internet banner ads. The article discusses how advertising companies want to know whether or not internet users like their ads, in order to improve future ads. Users are not able to click on a “like” or “dislike” button, which will then be seen by the advertising companies.

Digg’s philosophy of allowing users to curate good content by voting on what’s worthwhile and “burying” what stinks has converted well to paid spots. Advertisers are encouraged to make good, funny, compelling ads rather than loud ones because users can knock out the lame ads just as easily as they can “digg” them.

What may be surprising, however, is that the company charges advertisers more if the users dislike their content and less if it’s well-received. This type of pricing usually results in bad ads getting shown less frequently. “We actually consult with brands and marketers on how to write those [good] headlines,” Maser said. “We have a full-time copywriter.”

Mason Wiley, a vice president of an online ad-agency — Hydra, is not as surprised as you’d think by the attempts these programs have been coming up with. “People tune out ads,” Wiley said. “Nowadays, to get attention, you have to be kind of crazy. … Smart advertisers are trying to make ads that are entertaining.”

Some agencies are seeing a success with the new method, as their number of click-through rates have increased significantly. According to Luke Iannini, cheif executive of Adpinions, the major value is all of the feedback they’re receiving. This feedback lets the advertisers create ads specific to a what the users have chosen to “like”.

Facebook has seen success with this method. It is basically the world’s largest ad opinion pool. Using these statistics of “Like” for ads, could have contributed to its projected $500 million in revenue this year.

The future of advertising on the internet will see more of this method of advertising. Advertisers will be able to cater to what the user wants, and will therefore be able to increase their click-troughs rates. If advertisers do not choose to change their methods, they will continue to see a decline in interest in their online advertisements.

-S. Reid

New Hope For Blockbuster?

Just in time for the holidays Samsung, the Korean electronics giant, will be releasing it’s newest line of television sets. As reported by John R. Quain in the November 4th New York Times, all 23 models come standard with internet ready capabilities, one more step in the amalgamation of internet and TV. This technological convergence is not a new concept by any stretch of the imagination, however with all new TVs becoming internet friendly, many companies are now jumping onto the potentially huge bandwagon of content sales for the format. Streaming of movies through television has the power to be the money maker to movies as iTunes was to music, changing the industry and perhaps signaling the end for the DVD. Notable among the companies who will rent and sell content are Amazon, Netflix, and Blockbuster.

With all the talk of blockbuster going under it was very interesting to see their name in with the other companies mentioned above. If the industry continues to drop with at the current rate and as DVDs (perhaps) fade out, the video rental store may have seen it’s heyday. It’s good to see Blockbuster adapting to the changing industry. As we learned about branding, people may be inclined to rent their material from blockbuster online over the competition due to the brands credibility and history in the industry. A smart move from a company seemingly on the decline.

As with iTunes and the music industry I can undoubtedly see how this new form of movie watching could change traditional viewing habits. To be honest, I actually see it happening here in greater force. The thing with music is when a CD or record or cassette is purchased, whether you are a dedicated fan or just into one or two tracks you feel like you have a direct connection or a small piece of the band. Something tangible that you can touch, through it feeling as though you are a part of that artists success. iTunes is great as it allows the listener to purchase content more conveniently as well as be selective if they choose. However, that feeling of connection is gone. For some that is a non issue, but for many it is one of great concern. With movies the feeling is different. By owning a movie perhaps one would still feel a sort of connection with an actor, perhaps with the story or visuals, but it is most definitely not one as strong a feeling as with music. Purchasing movies online and having them stored on a hard drive could then be an easier and perhaps more excepted transition. Will people continue to buy the DVD, Blu Ray, HD DVD or what have you, or are the days of those formats numbered? It will be interesting to see…

-A. Murata

Does Technology Reduce Social Isolation?

Hundreds of daily updates come from friends on Facebook and Twitter, but do people actually feel closer to each other?

Contrary to what many people would say, social networking is not actually isolating people, reports the New York Times. Even in an age where the average American is more socially isolated than 20 years ago. The use of cellphones and the Internet are not to blame, according to a new study released by the Pew Internet and American Life Project which was based on telephone interviews with a national sample of 2,512 adults living in the continental United States. .

In contrast to what people may think, those who regularly use networking sites are more social than the average American and more likely to visit social places in their community, or volunteer for local organizations, according to the study. Although some anti-social behaviour were found , such as 30 % of these networkers are less likely to know there neighbour and only 26 % would be likely to give them a helping hand if need be.

“Two years ago, a General Society Survey hypothesized that the average American was feeling more socially isolated because of the rise of the Internet and cellphones. That study found that from 1985 to 2004, the number of intimate friendships people reported dropped from three to two.”

It seems that cellphone users with a close circle of friends tends to be 12 percent larger than for nonusers. People who share online photos or instant messages have 9 percent larger social circles than nonusers. Now this does not mean that these technology users prefer these means for social relationships.

The study also found that people still prefer face-to-face communication as the primary means to stay in touch with friends and family. People see loved ones in person an average of 210 days a year as for via mobile phone an average of 195 days a year.

I believe that social networking and such technologies is just a new mean of staying in touch with friends, in a time were people find themselves more busy then ever before. New times call for new means of communication, but that’s just stating the obvious.

-Maxine