Engadget:
An embedded camera will recognize your gender and age, allowing the machine to recommend a beverage suitable to whatever stereotype is attached to your particular circumstances.
-
Recent Posts
Tags
Japan takes vending machines to their logical, 47-inch touchscreen extreme →
Tagged Design
Why Bigger Pictures Won’t Make YouTube Any Better →
Neato. AdAge published my piece on YouTube’s 4k video format.
Tagged Media, Online Video
Google And Verizon Reiterate Their Love For The Open Internet →
Amusing quote from Google CEO Eric Schmidt when read out of context:
We love the Internet and we have no intention of doing anything other than the Internet.
Cognitive Surplus →
Book Review – Cognitive Surplus – By Clay Shirky – NYTimes.com:
In the age of “The Sopranos,” “The Wire,” “Lost” and “Mad Men,” TV has achieved a measure of cultural respectability that would flummox longtime naysayers. The guy who constantly mentions he doesn’t own a television is an Onion joke. If you really believe that TV is a wasteland, you’re either a crank, a pedant or unfortunate enough to have missed that one episode of “Battlestar Galactica” in which we find out about the Cylons.
Tagged Media
Christopher Nolan’s “Implementation” →
Goings On: Shouts & Murmurs: Christopher Nolan’s “Implementation” : The New Yorker
You have three minutes to make a PowerPoint presentation that will take me three hours to click through.
YouTube’s Amps Go to 11
On Friday YouTube announced support for “4K video,” meaning video files with a dimensional size up to 4096 x 2304 pixels. Not only does this feature have no practical application in online video, the announcement itself only serves to further confuse an already misinformed public of professional and amateur video publishers.
YouTube purports to make videos “…available in the highest quality possible, as creators intend,” and this is the problem. Bigger is not necessarily better, or more accurately, there is a practical limitation to the gains in perceived quality from video files of a larger dimensional size (notice that I don’t use the term “resolution” here, as the term refers to pixel density, not the number of horizontal and vertical pixels). In fact, going too big will likely introduce a number of performance and quality issues for the vast majority of users.
YouTube mentions that watching videos in 4k requires an “ultra-fast high-speed broadband connection,” but this is actually the least important requirement. While users on slower broadband connections can always wait for enough of the video to download and buffer before watching it, they can’t increase their RAM, GPU performance and display resolution, and those are the source of the real issues.
Most of us these days use digital displays (LCDs, etc.) with native, fixed pixel dimensions. For instance right now I’m on an Apple Cinema display with a fixed pixel dimension of 1920 x 1200. This means that my MacBook Pro’s graphics processor needs to scale any incoming format to the native dimension of my display. The bigger the difference between the incoming format and my display, the more work the GPU needs to do to scale the image. In terms of YouTube’s 4k videos, the end result is that my 1 year old top-of-the-line MacBook Pro can’t smoothly handle the processing, resulting in dropped frames (jerky video playback) and a less than optimal video watching experience. If I switch the stream to 720p or 1080p it looks great, with no perceived difference in image clarity. Actually, I see more compression and motion artifacts in the 4k stream from what I can only guess is non-optimal interpolation from the GPU. You can see for yourself here, but you need to switch to the “Original” format to see the 4k version.
The other issue with YouTube’s announcement is that it makes no mention of bitrate or compression, which is far more important than pixel dimension when it comes to quality. As a video destination catering mostly to non-professionals, YouTube has always used high compression/low bitrates — and their 4k video is no exception. This is why compression artifacts are so noticeable even when watching the 4k version.
Here is a non-magnified section of a screenshot taken of a 4k video on YouTube when played in full screen mode (click the image to see the full screenshot). You can clearly see lots pixelation and compression artifacts, and this is a section with very little motion.
What’s the point of offering higher definition formats if bitrate settings are so low as to introduce significant compression artifacts? This by the way is also a problem with most cable operators: their 1080i and 720p HD signals look terrible due to over compression.
Offering higher dimension video files is technically trivial. It’s simply a matter of adding another transcode profile. But by offering the option to publish ridiculously large video files, YouTube is confusing the public as to what constitutes good video quality and encouraging publishers to upload video files in a format that results in a poor experience for most users.
Tagged Media, Online Video, Web
Connected TV – Why Google Will Succeed Where Apple and Others Have Failed
A few weeks ago I was arguing with some folks about what Apple would announce at this year’s WWDC. Given that we knew Apple would announce the next gen iPhone (thanks Gizmodo), there wasn’t much fun in making predications this year. So, our debate shifted to what we hoped Apple would announce (acknowledging the unlikelihood of anything major beyond iPhone 4).
I was most excited about the rumors circulating of a new Apple TV based on iPhone OS 4 and offering cloud-based media streaming, including 1080P video. Admittedly, I’m one of the few people who actually owns and uses an Apple TV. Despite it’s limitations, it’s still the best living room video-on-demand experience for premium TV and movies (yeah, Netflix streaming is great, but their catalogue sucks – Breakfast Club anyone?). All told I watch more content delivered via iTunes/Apple TV than my Tivo HD, Vudu and PS3 combined.
Anyway, the idea of a new cloud-based Apple TV based on the iPhone OS made perfect sense to me. This would allow Apple to extend the reach of their platform ecosystem (iTunes, apps, media, devices) to the living room. It would be the Papa Bear of the iOS device family, perfectly complimenting the iPhone and iPad. The implications for console gaming alone would be huge. Who would still buy a Wii? Game developers could write universal apps for iPhone, iPad and… iTV? The iPhone or iPad could be used as a remote control, keyboard and game controller – made significantly more powerful with iPhone 4′s new gyroscope capabilities. And that’s just games. If an iTunes-in-the-cloud streaming service (based on Apple’s acquisition of Lala) was on the horizon, a logical extension of that would be 1080P video streaming. Add to this Google’s recent Google TV announcement and it all made perfect sense.
Well… not only did Mr. Jobs not announce the next gen Apple TV at WWDC, he actually went out of his way a few days earlier on stage at the D8 show to disparage the very idea. Basically he said that there’s no viable path to market for new TV platforms. According to Jobs, people won’t pay for a set-top box when they already get one free from their cable operator – Tivo’s difficulties are proof of this and Google will soon learn this lesson as well. He then goes on to say that the only way to be successful is if you start from scratch, build a great experience and get it to the consumer in a way that they’re willing to pay for. But again, according to Jobs this can’t be done in what is essentially a cable subsidized industry.
I think he’s right about most of this. It would be very difficult for Apple TV to be successful for all the reasons he described. But what if these capabilities were built into the TVs people bought and they didn’t have to buy another set-top box? Wouldn’t that address the problem of getting it to the consumer in a way that they’re willing to pay for? The problem is this would never work for Apple because Apple, as we all know, is about controlling the entire ecosystem and experience, from hardware to software to services. They would never OEM the iOS to run on a third party TV. And for good reason. Remember Apple’s first attempt at a phone – the disastrous Motorola E790 Apple iTunes phone? Like the PC, music player, phone and tablet markets before, the only way it makes sense for Apple to get serious about connected TVs is to build an actual TV (on one hand this sounds far fetched, on the other, inevitable).
Not so Google. While Apple would need to build a TV to stay true to their ethos and address the go-to-market issues, Google, as exemplified by their Android handset strategy, is all about partnering with hardware manufacturers. In the case of Google TV, the most important of their initial launch partners is Sony. Sure, the Logitech box sounds neat, and will likely be adopted by AV geeks who don’t mind maintaining a rack of peripherals, but to Jobs’ point, most consumers don’t want another box when they already get one for free (or a nominal rental fee) from their cable operator. Enter Sony, who will be releasing the first TV to integrate the Google TV platform.
Sony, a once great electronics company whose market share on multiple fronts has been eroded by competition and market dynamics, desperately needs a hit. And Google TV, much more so than 3D TV in my opinion, may be just what they need to ignite a real turnaround (provided of course they don’t drop the ball on pricing, marketing, etc.). The Sony partnership paves the way for Google to deliver their TV platform to consumers in a way they’ll pay for, a new TV – directly addressing Jobs’ key concern of go-to-market viability. Provided the launch is successful I can only assume that other TV makers will rush to market with competing Google TV sets. It will also be interesting to see how Sony’s content holdings will play into this. Will Google TV provide a channel for direct delivery of Sony owned content? I have no idea but the possibility is interesting on several levels. We’ll see.
Having Google TV baked into TVs will be key to the platform’s success, but the main reason Google will succeed where others haven’t is the fundamental difference in their approach. This won’t be a separate, or alternate input to the primary TV viewing experience (like Apple TV, Boxee, Vudu or Roku). Nor will it be limited to standard cable/satellite content delivered through a better DVR (like Tivo). This will be the television experience. Forrester analyst James McQuivey put it best in the piece he wrote for paidContent last week:
Google TV will be a persistent interface that resides on your TV, giving you access to search functions (searching linear programming, web video, and even the general Web to get IMDB facts or background on the season finale of Glee) any time you’re watching TV, not just when you switch the input.
By partnering with leading CE manufacturers and taking a much bolder, more complete and immersive approach to the connected TV experience, Google is poised to reach and engage the millions of viewers who spend 4.5 hours a day watching TV, and by extension tap into the $70 billion dollar broadcast advertising market. For Google, this is clearly much more than a hobby.
Tagged Consumer Tech, Media
Opportunities and Challenges In Online Video Delivery
Note: The following is a repost from the Kyte Blog.
In the last decade online video has grown from an esoteric hobbyist activity into a multi-million dollar business built around a thriving ecosystem of content creators, publishing and monetization platforms, and various enabling technologies, services and devices. Like many industries born out of the mass consumer embrace of the Internet, online video continues to evolve rapidly. It was only five years ago that the first video was uploaded and shared on YouTube, yet a scan of industry news today reflects a growing conversation around the myriad devices and endpoints from which audiences consume video.
Advances in broadband, computer technology and consumer electronics have ushered in a new era of Internet connected, video-capable devices (PCs, smart phones, gaming consoles, tablets, set-top boxes, etc.). Digital technology has also greatly reduced the cost and complexity of creating video content, resulting in the emergence of not only user generated video, but a greater output of professional and semi-professional video content from publishers for whom video was once cost prohibitive.
These two trends combined (increased distribution channels and low production costs) have resulted in an explosion of Internet-based video.
Since Kyte’s launch in 2007, one of our hallmarks has been our ability to anticipate the direction consumer demand is headed, and then innovate quickly to help video publishers meet that demand head-on. Most recently this has taken the form of turn-key application frameworks and SDKs for leading social, mobile and connected device platforms including Facebook, iPhone/iPad, Android, Blackberry, Nokia and Boxee.
Our product philosophy reflects our belief that audiences will continue to consume content across a broad variety and combination of Internet-enabled devices and platforms.
This is a belief supported by the reality of today’s media landscape:
The shift to digital continues
Media companies and marketers evaluating their video strategy need only to look to the news media to witness an industry that failed to innovate fast enough to meet consumer demand for digital content. As new online news and information delivery models (HuffingtonPost, CNN.com, ESPN.com, Craigslist.org) emerged, the ad dollar pool for local and regional print news outlets shrunk to a fraction of its previous size. Many smaller outlets have gone entirely out of business, and even larger news organizations (Gannett, AP, etc. ) have begun to feel the pain. Publishers that fail to innovate and embrace online, mobile and social delivery mechanisms will surely experience the same fate.
Digital has evolved beyond the PC
Delivery of video to the PC was just the beginning. Online audiences are spending increasing amounts of time consuming media from multiple platforms. The introduction of the iPhone and now the iPad have established entirely new markets for the delivery and sharing of live and on-demand video content. According to Nielson, mobile is now the fastest growing segment of video consumption. And connected devices like Boxee and Roku are meeting pent-up demand from consumers frustrated by the lack of freedom and control over how and when they consume professional broadcast and internet programming.
Digital is social
The days of centralized, one-way broadcasting are over. In today’s world of social media and transparency, video publishers need to create an authentic experience supported by the social dynamic of friends and like-minded individuals. Facebook and Twitter have become integral to today’s media consumption habits, with Facebook poised to revolutionize online advertising (in much the same way Google did with search) through “earned impressions” based on intricate social connections and behavioral history. To be relevant today and engage audiences, publishers need to create video experiences that integrate the social graph and provide a rich interactive experience.
These trends are amplified when video content is separated from static digital content. Video is commanding a much higher CPM than traditional display advertising, and advertisers are finding TV less effective as they shift dollars online. Combined with an avalanche of statistics that show more and more people are watching video programming online or on their mobile devices, media companies and marketers are faced with several compelling reasons to quickly determine how they are going to reach and engage with these audiences.
While consumer choice and emerging platforms have created new opportunities for publishers, and in some cases entirely new industries, these trends are also the key contributors to growing audience fragmentation, resulting in increased technical challenges for publishers looking to deliver rich video experiences to multi-platform audiences.
Adding to this, competing technologies and devices (and the companies who back them) are creating additional technical hurdles for publishers (the Flash vs. HTML5 war being the prime example).
In summary, for any organization evaluating how to best publish, monetize and scale video in what is becoming an increasingly complex landscape, it’s important to consider the particular goals of your organization and the many options that are available to you. Here are some decision criteria to help you get started:
- Evaluate your video strategy through the lens of your broader marketing objectives. Are you already reaching core audiences across social platforms? How about mobile? How can you converge these efforts under a single point of control?
- If you’re considering working with an online video platform (OVP) provider, examine how different vendors provide mobile, social and connected device capabilities. Can they provide these services natively, or do they work with third parties to provide this functionality? How deep are their roots in mobile and social technology?
- How quickly do you need to move? Do you need a partner with built-in native functionality across multiple consumption platforms, or can you handle longer development cycles?
- What are your content creation needs? Do you plan to leverage live and on-demand video? How about UGC? Do you have a means of easily moderating this content?
To discuss your own particular requirements and challenges in producing, managing and delivering multi-platform social video experiences, feel free to contact us.