Saturday, June 14, 2008

The Web Offers a Window Into Paradise's Burning

Three weeks ago, I told a story about how Northern California fires had once chased my family and me from our home, as evacuation orders had our family of seven packing our belongings and heading to the central valley floor, not knowing what we'd find when we returned. This weekend, the fires came back to Paradise, where I lived from 1994 to 1999, and where my family spent 10 years. But this time they weren't stopped at the town limits, and the fire has consumed more than 70 homes, so far scorching more than 23,000 acres.

Over the last 24 hours, I've turned to the Web to learn all I can about this tragedy, and through the various tools out there on the Web, from newspaper Web sites to user submitted photography, recorded video, and even a streaming broadcast of the county's public safety scanner, to learn what has happened. And the news is not good.


Firefighters Take to the Air to Fight the Blaze

While this blaze, dubbed the "Humboldt Fire", hasn't gained the national attention given the San Diego fires last year, or even the awareness we saw in the Bay Area for the fire last month in the Santa Cruz mountains, the effects are just as devastating. While I haven't called Paradise home for almost a decade, we've gotten word over the last day or so that friends' homes have been wiped clean from the earth, their life's dreams and possessions erased in a flaming fury.

The two main sources of news have been the area newspapers, including the Chico Enterprise Record, where I once wrote as a staff intern back in 1995 and 1996, and the smaller, hometown Paradise Post.


See KCRA Sacramento's Report on the Blaze from Friday

Photos from the Enterprise Record have been circulated through the Associated Press, and show stories of loss, heroic efforts from those fighting the blaze, and agony. The Enterprise Record also asked those effected by the fires to submit their own photos, and both collections feature hundreds of first-party accounts. At one point, nearly 10,000 of the town's 30,000 residents were asked to evacuate, and of the three roads out of town, only one was left open, with none who left being able to return.

A PDF map of those homes burned shows the flames came within a mile of where I spent my 8th grade to 12th grade years. And while the family who now lives in our home appears to have been safe, other friends were not so lucky.

My younger sister, writing on our family blog, posted last night:
"The Rogers and the Sterlings both lost their homes. The Greers are still not able to stay at their home and are in (Yuba City). The Halls are okay, as is Tiger Tail. All of Wayland is supposedly gone."
The Rogers family and The Sterling family were both friends and members of our church. Tiger Tail Lane, which my sister references, is where our home was, luckily escaping the flames again. Tonight, my mother added a new note:
"The Sterlings are apparently devastated -- it took them 20 years to build their home."
The Sterling's youngest son, Rob, is currently serving a two-year mission for the church, and it now becomes a trial for the family to see if they tell him, or when they can tell him, without distracting from what they consider extremely important work.

This kind of personal detail makes what otherwise would be yet another sad story full of statistics on homes burned and acres torched just that much more real. I can check the CDF's report and see that the blaze is now 45% contained, has cost $5 million so far, employing nearly 4,000 fire personnel. I can see stories that say it will be fully contained by Monday, and that the threat to Paradise has decreased, but clearly, for some it is already too late.

I'm watching on the Web, but I can't help but feel powerless.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Faithless Bombs Video: Amazing Music, Piercing Message

One exposure to music from Faithless, led by lead singer Maxi Jazz, will make you sure you've never heard any sound quite like it. I first fell in awe of Faithless' unique vocals in the epic "Insomnia", and gained immeasurable respect for his work with the Iraq War-themed "Mass Destruction", released in 2004. But even that didn't prepare me for the raw message and real emotion shown in his video titled "Bombs" from his latest album, "To All New Arrivals", which hit the iTunes Music Store in early November. While the album hit stores about a year ago, starting in Europe, I only found it today, and ... Wow.

While I highly encourage you to purchase the album (and two accompanying videos) from iTunes, below is the "Bombs" video, courtesy of YouTube. It's very impressive to see an artist I really already like taking such a strong political stance, regardless the consequences.

Direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Ps_MBXEdA



If you found this music strong or the message moving, pass it along. I'm dismayed it took me so long to find!

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Web 2.0 Logos Celebrate Halloween - You Scared?


It's October 31st, which can only mean that while the kids go door to door to get candy, we're going from Web site to Web site to find out which Web companies are embracing Halloween in the true tradition of logo modification!

Google, which has a very long history of this thing, is of course participating. So is Google's subsidiary, YouTube, and Google competitors, Yahoo! and Technorati. Even Friendfeed, started by some ex-Googlers, has debuted a great Halloween logo.

Can you find any notable Halloween themed logos out there that I missed, and hopefully some that have absolutely zero to do with Google? Post them in the comments, and we can update the picture.

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, July 29, 2007

Google Video Still Peddling Soft-Core Porn Smut

I'm no prude, but I tend to believe that the higher the prominence a service has, combined with its ease of access, the more responsibility that service has to ensure its content is within commonly accepted guidelines. Barring those restrictions, the option should be offered to avoid questionable material. While Google does a good job with the majority of its offerings, the company's Google Video site is out of control - dominated by by soft core pornographic clips and innuendo.

Despite my noting several months ago that the Google Video service's most popular videos are almost universally offerings of a sexual nature, the world's number one information portal has done nothing to stop its direction. If no action is taken, it's likely that the adult portion of Google's video collection will so overwhelm other content that those seeking less titillating topics will head elsewhere.

Nearly a year after Google acquired YouTube, the main page of Google Video promotes videos they believe you would like (Recommended), Popular Videos, and a wide array of featured material. Also included on the front page are "Blog Buzz" items, similar to Technorati's Popularity rankings, Movers & Shakers, and a Top 10 list.

Today's Top Ten List as of midnight Sunday Pacific Time...
    1. SEXY HOTTIE BABE DECIDING to SHOW HER BIG BOOBS on YOUTUBE?
    2. Barbie Girl :D
    3. Woman In SHOWER!!!
    4. Girl caught by boyfriend
    5. Webcam Girls Go Wild ( full )
    6. Guy pwned by girl! www.videowhip.co.uk
    7. Ainda te amo
    8. sex hardcore xxx
    9. Beyonce falls
    10. loko da xuxa

It doesn't take a forensic scientist to see what is driving these rankings. In fact, if you click on the Top 100 link, the "brilliance" continues... offering... "Two girls teach one another how to French kiss"... "SEXY FART IN WEBCAM"... "close up half-undressed couple rolling around on bed"... "Hot Bikini Porn or Proud Vet?" ... "Kim Kardashian HUGE A*S AND TITS" and much more.

In Google's search results and image results, one has the option to add SafeSearch filtering to "not to have adult sites included in search results". Yet, even if I set my preferences to the most strict option, these videos don't change. Google's algorithm shows me the top 100 most popular videos, regardless if I'm looking for the PG-rated list or R-rated list.

Google is pervasive. As I mentioned last week, the site delivers me 95% of my blog traffic from search engines. With YouTube and Google Video, Google can dominate the video space as well. People of all ages are turning to this site to learn what's hot and what's not, and if Google Video is to be believed, sex continues to be hot. Very hot. I think the very least the site could do is extend the "SafeSearch" filtering to video, remove adult material from the Top 10 and Top 100 listings, or collapse the Top 10 list so the questionable material is off the front page. We wouldn't accept this ease of access to soft porn from AOL or CNN or Yahoo!, and we shouldn't accept it from Google.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, July 16, 2007

YouTube Debut of Ash Steffy: New Tenant

One of my best friends from high school, Ash Steffy, attended UCLA, pursued post-graduate study at the Art Center in Pasadena, and continues to follow his dreams as an aspiring film director in Hollywood. After much prodding by me, his much-anticipated short film debut has hit YouTube, in the form of "New Tenant", which covers a working stiff's efforts to pursue a 9 to 5 living, only to see one morning go hilariously awry. I hope you like it. Be sure to share with those you know would also enjoy it.

Direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZg0ErXRMTE

Labels: , , ,

The iPhone Says My Thumbs Are Too Fat

Saturday morning, we finally swung by the Apple Store at Valley Fair in San Jose for the first time "Post iPhone" to take a look at Apple's new device that has the tech world aflutter. While very thin and chock full of features, the iPhone's virtual on-screen keyboard rejected about half my keystrokes in a quick trial run, making me more comfortable in my decision to stick with the Blackberry, at least for now.

I've used a Blackberry for the better part of five years, through three product generations, and while the keyboard has changed quite a bit over time, it still follows an easy to use format, with the standard QWERTY layout, and tactile response. When i started fiddling with the iPhone, to try and test its e-mail capability, half the letters would end up one away from their intended mark, making the words so badly jumbled that not even the included auto-correct dictionary had a clue as to where to start.

If I would try to type, "Hi there from the iPhone", it was more likely to read "Ho yheer gtom rhe iohome." Making it worse, every time I would delete a mistype, my next keystroke would put the same error right back. It got me thinking one of two things was occurring. Either I was slipping into lazy eye double vision which had my hands not coordinating well with my eyes, or my thumbs were too fat. It had me longing for the simplicity of the stylus on my old Handspring Visor, or the keyboard from the Blackberry line of mobile handhelds. If I did walk away with an iPhone (and I didn't), there's no question there would be some significant practice necessary before I could become as proficient as on the Blackberry.

That's not to say the experience with the iPhone was all bad. The camera was drop-dead simple to use. Squeezing and stretching photos on the screen or scrolling through the faux address book was a breeze, especially after having seen Apple's numerous demo videos. Playing videos from YouTube was quick and crystal-clear. I didn't mess around with Safari, but have no doubts that too was solid. And the iPhone is extremely thin, moreso than I had expected when it was first announced.

If I was looking for a Hallelujah moment that pushed me over the edge from interested observer to proud owner on Saturday, it didn't come. If cost and phone service quality were not an issue, I'd love to have one, but both are, and for now, we're still going to be cheering on the iPhone from the sidelines, and looking into ways for our fat fingers to cut back on the carbs.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Our Apple TV Gets an Upgrade, With YouTube

Since the initial euphoria over getting the Apple TV set top box into our home, we haven't exactly been using it every day. While it's a great backup for missed shows that can be downloaded from iTunes, and also a fun way to play iTunes music through my TV's speakers, the inflexibility of iTunes in terms of not having movies for rent, or the ability to play .AVI files natively, has limited our use. Today, Apple debuted a new software update for the Apple TV that delivered a new source of entertainment: YouTube, directly to the Apple TV.

As I noted in my writeup for The Apple Blog (see: YouTube Comes to My Apple TV), the installation process was simple, taking about 10 minutes, and adds YouTube as a dedicated channel on the Apple TV, alongside TV Shows, Movies, Music, etc. Now, instead of looking at thumbnail-like video clips from the laptop, I can search and view this primarily amateur-created entertainment on the big 42-inch screen. As with my initial experience with the Apple TV, I expect this to be a fun amusement in the near term, and used sporadically longer term, but it is a good proof point for the coming marriage of television, entertainment and the Web.

The lines for where content is obtained are increasingly blurred, and whether it be my laptop, my iPod, the TV screen or, maybe, someday, the iPhone, I am getting a similarly increasing array of choices of how to enjoy this entertainment, either on the big screen or the little one. The YouTube deployment is also another proof point of continued closeness between Apple and Google, two of the "good guys" in technology, who haven't been sullied by decades of Microsoft-like behavior. While I don't anticipate any closer of a business relationship, like the one insinuated by New York Magazine this week, saying Google could acquire Apple, that these two are working together can only mean good things for consumers everywhere.

I can only hope that the previously rumored movie rentals from iTunes are next to debut from Apple. We'll be sitting with popcorn and remote in hand, waiting.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Viacom Goes After $1 Billion of Google's Cash

It has a nice "Dr. Evil" ring to it. Viacom is suing Google for $1 billion dollars, saying the company, through its acquired YouTube video sharing property had used its programming online without authorization. The suit is more than just saber-rattling and content takedown requests, but poses a very serious threat to the future of YouTube.

Viacom famously demanded that YouTube remove all of its copyrighted content from its servers, more than 100,000 clips, and give up the names of those who had posted the files, ranging from Comedy Central "fake news" to MTV videos. Meanwhile, Mark Cuban and others railed on Google and YouTube's seeming inability to filter uploads to prevent the posting of copyrighted material. But Google, as many ISPs have when their users go astray, said the onus was on the individual.

Viacom, I believe accurately, says that "YouTube's strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site." After all, Google and YouTube before it, are in the business of selling ads, and whatever drives traffic to the ads is money in the bank. After spending $1.65 billion to acquire YouTube, Google has a very big potential headache on its hands now, as one of the biggest media giants on Earth isn't messing around.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, February 5, 2007

Soft-Core Porn, Sex Themes Power Google Video

It's largely believed that Google Video will censor pornography or adult material from being uploaded to the company's video service. While in large part that may be true, that you can't find hot, steamy triple-X action on the site in the standard results, a quick stop over to the "Top 100" popular videos shows that Google Video users are just as interested in seeing a little skin as anything else.

Among tonight's "Top 10" films, you can see the titles hint and titillate users with names such as "Hot Girls", "Lesbos", "Sex Without Condoms", a video titled "First allowed Porn? XXX?" and "Barbie Girl". Beyond the Top 10, the themes are much the same... "Naked Kristina", "Spice Girls - Naked", "Giving Birth" and "Hot Sexy Webcam Girl". (See the screenshot from tonight here)

Hardly the PG and PG-13 landscape I might have naively expected.

Just this week, the hubbub over copyright issues surrounding Viacom's takedown notice to YouTube (a Google property) brought to light the issue of automatic filtering. Mark Cuban, the Broadcast.com-made billionaire and Dallas Mavericks owner, said that the search engine was likely using filters to block out racy images, with the help of some manual labor.

He writes...

"Is there anyone out there who really believes that the Google and Youtube "communities" scans all 60k daily uploads to protect those that might be offended by a nipple flash or two?"


While there is a separate, hidden channel, for more adult themes, Google Video and YouTube largely promote themselves as family-friendly sites, but it's clear to me, at least, that on the Web, porn is still king. Porn sites helped push the Web forward in its infancy, toward e-commerce, and pop-up windows, and significant innovation.

While those really, truly, looking for hard-core porn could find it elsewhere, Google Video now looks like it has a place as a soft-core alternative.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Scoble's Right: Technorati Isn't Scaling to Beat Google



I want to root for companies like Technorati, who have introduced new features and functionality for today's interactive, social Web. Technorati, when the site is up, is one of the best for tracking the popularity of topics and conversations, or to see which bloggers are among the most frequently linked to. But for months, the site has been riddled with slowness, server timeouts during searches or peak load, and most recently, has seen outage after outage. (The above image was posted on their site tonight, during some updates.)

In the past, Technorati CEO David Sifry has been open about the scalability problems. Just this last July, he commented on a previous note I made about the slowness, saying:
    You make a great point, we've been working very hard on building out the scalability and reliability of the Technorati service... Making sure that regular users like you are getting what you need, every time, quickly, is intensly important, and I want to know if you or anyone you know is having problems, so we can address the issues immediately...

His openness and speaking directly to the blogging community is commendable. I love the personal touch. But the truth is that Technorati still isn't scaling, and as Robert Scoble has pointed out time and again, Google's Blog Search tool is getting increasingly better, closing the gap between it and the blog search pioneers, including Technorati.

Meanwhile, Steve Rubel of Micropersuasion found one likely reason Technorati isn't that focused on keeping their core search tool on top of its game. He discovered on Tuesday that Technorati is planning a Digg-like competitor called Technorati WTF, short for "Where's the Fire"? Yet, that site still isn't live, though it could be coming shortly, causing some of the recent downtime.

Just like I mentioned with YouTube recently, downtime is not an acceptable part of today's Web-driven world. If you can't deliver your core services, then why are you adding new features? Fix what is broken, and learn how to make updates without impacting the users. I haven't seen Google go down for maintenance, maybe ever. If they're up and you're down, where are the users going to go?

Previous Stories:
Silly YouTube - Where's The Redundancy?
Web 2.0 Companies Play With Error Messages

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, January 27, 2007

What is the True Value of an Entertainment Download?

Hollywood and the big media music and television moguls are struggling to determine how to price their entertainment offerings in a new technology landscape. As consumers, we have more flexibility than ever to obtain music, TV or video from more sources than ever, including TiVo, NetFlix, iTunes, YouTube and other less legal methods. As such, we have the power to realign our expectations for what we are willing to pay, rather than sitting as victims to what are often monopoly-seeking businesspeople.

Approximately four years ago, the music industry was being eaten alive by illegal peer to peer music file sharing. In April of 2003, Apple introduced the iTunes Music Store, and established a legal way for customers to download music, inexpensively, setting a pricing model of 99 cents per track, and typically, $9.99 per album, pricepoints which closely mirror those by nearly all other online music labels to date. While these prices were less expensive than one would expect to pay in a music retail store like Sam Goody or Tower Records, it was, for the music industry, a much-appreciated alternative to free, and the record labels had a new partner who encouraged customers to not steal music. Now, Apple has successfully sold more than 2 billion tracks, and appearing on iTunes is a must for artists - established or otherwise.

Later, Apple added the ability to sell television shows through the store, establishing a price of $1.99 per episode. Season passes, downloading every copy of the show for a full season, ranged much higher, sometimes on the order of $30 or $40. While only ABC had joined on initially, other networks followed suit, meaning I can now download current or back episodes for everything from South Park to Fox's 24, or Law and Order.

Now, this introduction was truly a new wrinkle. Consumers with TiVos or even a simple VCR have had the ability to record shows without charge since the advent of those technologies - and most still watch the shows as they are aired, commercials and all. Now, Apple and the networks are trying to establish the value of a television show where free was the original price, clearly harder to do. If I instead have the option to set up a season pass for a show on TiVo, I can do that for free, and skip iTunes, saving me money.

Meanwhile, back in the analog world, watching a feature film in a theater can cost anywhere from $7 to $10 and up per ticket, depending on where you live, what time you go, and how long the film has been in theaters. Whether the movie is 80 minutes, like Borat, or a 3-hour Titanic or Dances With Wolves marathon, the price is the same, so you're not paying by the minute, or for the actors' time. Instead, you're paying to cover the actors' contracts and the film's marketing costs. Outside of the Internet, the price to attend movies in a theater has remained fairly inelastic over time, increasing only with inflation. As a result, consumers don't often shop around to choose the theater with the best price, instead going with the theater that offers the closest location, or is showing the movie you'd like to see at a time you'd like to see it.

And this leads us back to the iTunes store. In 2006, Apple added feature films like Pirates of the Carribean and Cars, to their media library. Again, they've tried to implement standard pricing, from $9.99 for established films to $14.99 for new releases. Now, instead of the $7-10 or more per ticket to see the film in a theater, you have the option to buy the film to own, to watch on your laptop, in most cases, and soon, with Apple TV, you can project it to the flat-screen, effectively bringing the movie experience to your home.

All that said, music and TV shows and films are very different beasts. A music track you purchase from iTunes can be played again and again, as people don't tire of music as rapidly as they do visual media. Some of my most frequently listened-to tracks have been heard a few dozen times each, and others, much less. Television shows are typically watched a single time, and then deleted (from TiVo or your computer). If it's a rerun, the value of the show has greatly diminished. Meanwhile, feature films are almost strictly a once and done affair - unless you have the feeling of guilt for purchasing something and watch it again to justify the cost. it takes a rare feature film to get me to see it in the theater more than once, and DVDs I've received as gifts often make their way back into the dusty bin of our entertainment center. This once and done mentality is why our society gravitates toward renting DVDs from NetFlix and BlockBuster instead of buying them, and why feature films eventually leave theaters altogether - no matter how good the film. The audience that saw them once probably isn't coming back.

Looking back at iTunes, this means that while downloaded songs are the cheapest commodity, they are also the most-often enjoyed, while the higher you go up the price charts, to richer media, the fewer times you are going to typically enjoy the purchase. While you could make the argument that an iTunes song is shorter in minutes than a TV show or a movie, and you would be right, the value you receive from each download is greater. If my favorite song is 6 minutes long, and I've listened to it 20 times, I've received a perceived 120 minutes of value from it for 99 cents. In comparison, a downloaded CSI episode for $1.99 only would 40 or so minutes, without commercials, and costs twice as much. I would have to watch it more than four times to receive the equivalent minutes of enjoyment per dollar spent. And even if you move the spot on the graph to say I only listened to that iTunes track 10 times, for sixty minutes of entertainment at $.99, I would still need to see Gil Grissom examine the corpse three or more times before I've reached a similar return on investment, for my $1.99.

So while I can gain 120 minutes of entertainment from a single iTunes track, heard 20 times, those same 120 minutes of entertainment, in the form of a feature film, will cost you at least $9.99. Additionally, a lot of movies are getting shorter and shorter. The aforementioned Borat would be almost halfway through its second showing by the time you reached the two hour mark.

This tells me that the market for paid movie downloads will remain much smaller than that for music, unless costs decrease. Consumers will almost always select the cheapest way to a goal. If the perceived value of a TV show or a movie is not significantly more than that of a song, consumers will shy away from the significantly higher prices needed to buy films and TV online, even if the entertainment media moguls try to convince us that the actual value is higher. This will drive consumers to illegally download entire films for free rather than pay iTunes or other services, until the disconnect between actual and perceived values is closed. While there are free legal alternatives for television shows (via basic TV), and music has decreased in price such that the draw for peer to peer networks has lessened, it is my feeling that the price of feature films has not come down significantly enough to encourage today's consumers to purchase them with the frequency they do music. It's not just a matter of consumers needing highest speed broadband to get the files. It's return on investment.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Silly YouTube - Where's The Redundancy?



For a company that was worth more than $1.6 billion as a Google acquisition, you would think they'd have learned how to make seamless changes without bringing down the entire site, but YouTube seems to instead love showing new error images.

Previous Story: Web 2.0 Companies Play With Error Messages

I hate to be suspicious, but this may or may not have to do with Fox's recent suit for YouTube to take down copyrighted episodes of 24 and The Simpsons. Of course, those who really want the shows can get them elsewhere online for free.

Update: Google's blog says YouTube and Google Video were integrated last night:
Starting today, YouTube video results will appear in the Google Video search index: when you click on YouTube thumbnails, you will be taken to YouTube.com to experience the videos. Over time, Google Video will become even more comprehensive as it evolves into a service where you can search for the world's online video content, irrespective of where it may be hosted.

Labels: , , ,