By now everyone’s heard about Microsoft’s mongo-bid for Yahoo as MS tries to reposition itself against Google.   I’ve been reading the opinions out there, and there have been many comments about both Microsoft’s and Yahoo’s previous mis-steps and lost opportunities.  Interestingly, there’s a $5.4b Yahoo mistake I haven’t seen written about (tell me if you see otherwise), but I’m talking about how Yahoo failed to position itself as the global leader in online video back when it had the chance in 1999.  Yes, I’m talking about the buyout of Broadcast.com which was, at the time, the largest aggregator and distributor of audio and video on the net, and, arguably, the world.

I’ve got some strong opinions on this since I was there.  The following is my recollection of events.

I’d previously served as Director of Technology and was currently serving as VP of International Development and Special Projects.  I was basically a “fixer” — since I’d been there since the beginning and knew where the skeletons were buried, I was often called upon to help launch new projects, solve problems, close deals, etc.  It was 1999 and I was helping to shepherd the merger between Yahoo! and Broadcast.com, visiting Yahoo offices around the world as I worked on our International expansion plans.

I was shocked when I visited Yahoo’s HQ to discuss synergy strategies — and was rebuffed.   I encountered a monolithic “not invented here” attitude.  Who was I to intrude on Yahoo’s perfect plans?

I came back to Dallas and told Mark & Todd what had happened.  What it boiled down to was that there was no synergy plan.  All such plans and decisions would come from Yahoo — there was to be no back and forth.  We would accept their great wisdom from on high.  And like it.

Right.

I paraphrase this, of course, but that’s basically what happened.   I waited to see what would happen.  Where was the plan?  It never came.  I eventually went back to Todd and said, ‘look, I can’t sit around and watch Yahoo destroy everything we built and lose all our market dominance. ‘  I predicted that Yahoo would effectively dismantle us within a year.

I was wrong.

It took about six months.   The sites were never truly integrated.  No synergy was ever reached.

So what?  Sour grapes?

No.  At the time, Yahoo was king and like so many kings, was overconfident.  What seemed like a great strategic merger turned into a stock deal.   What is sad here is that Yahoo threw away a chance to integrate the worlds largest search engine with the worlds largest audio/video content aggregator.  Who knows what *could* have happened.  We’ll never know.  We’ll also never know if this dropped ball opened the door for YouTube.   Draw your own conclusions.

Other mistakes and lost opportunities are being talked about elsewhere and I won’t rehash them here.  Everybody makes mistakes. I’ve made some doozies myself.  The question in my mind is this — Does Microsoft have a well considered synergy plan?  Will they be willing to listen to Yahoo?   Will both be willing to change and adapt when things don’t work out the way they planned or will inertia, pride, and job security concerns keep them from changing the battle plan after it meets the enemy?

-pfs

Last year I picked up on <i>Sanctuary For All</i> a web-based video horror series shot almost entirely on green screen (http://www.sanctuaryforall.com).  The show stars the lovely Amanda Tapping (<i>Stargate SG-1</i> and <i>Stargate Atlantis</i>) who I also believe produced the dark stylistic drama.  The show was originally set up as a subscription-based series (if you wanted the hi-rez versions, the low-rez versions were easy to find for free).   I subscribed to get a peek at how the show looked and I have to admit I was very impressed.  I really love seeing a low-cost production like this done, with good writing and talent.  This is exactly the kind of thing I wanted to do years ago, but the technology just wasn’t cheap enough at the time.

So, my hat is off to Amanda and everyone at Sanctuary.  Their web-only video series has now been picked up for a 13 episode run on the SciFi Channel:

“Hello Sanctuarians,   So, let?s make it official, we have the green light that we have been waiting for.   Sci Fi Channel in the U.S. has ordered a full 13-episode season of Sanctuary and we begin production in March. International television distribution deals are still being negotiated”

Now, while I’m very happy for them, what I really want to see is a solid business model and a successful web video series that is a financial success purely on the web.  Not PPV but ad based.   Sanctuary never got a lot of web exposure — I only found it by accident and nobody I’ve ever talked to about it had heard of it.    Clearly, highly visible online distribution and some really good PR work will be needed for the first breakout web series.

Perhaps Yahoo/Microsoft or Google will put together an API and toolset for budding web video producers to use that would pre-format the content in some standardized fashion, and then promote such productions on tv.yahoo.com, video.aol.com or other high traffic sites.   This would open the door to broader, mainstream viewer acceptance.  At the same time this would embolden less mainstream producers to push the envelope in new directions.  That would be fun!

-pfs

I’ve seen mention of this idea before — Researchers at Purdue University are working on a system that would put radiation detectors on consumer cellphones — using the phone’s GPS capabilities, the system would create a national map of radiation spikes. The main idea is to head-off the transportation of nuclear materials by terrorists.

“Such a system could blanket the nation with millions of cell phones equipped with radiation sensors able to detect even light residues of radioactive material. Because cell phones already contain global positioning locators, the network of phones would serve as a tracking system.” http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008a/080122FischbachNuclear.html

“The sensors don’t really perform the detection task individually,” Fischbach said. “The collective action of the sensors, combined with the software analysis, detects the source. The system would transmit signals to a data center, and the data center would transmit information to authorities without alerting the person carrying the phone. Say a car is transporting radioactive material for a bomb, and that car is driving down Meridian Street in Indianapolis or Fifth Avenue in New York. As the car passes people, their cell phones individually would send signals to a command center, allowing authorities to track the source.”

While this is an interesting application, I’m sure that others are thinking of other applications. Since many molecule detectors can be chip-based now, one can imagine sensors to detect pathogens, toxic chemicals, fire or who knows. It also wouldn’t stretch the imagination too far to think of applications a bit further down the road, such as remotely programmable detectors that could adapt to changing needs and concerns. I’m sure there are many that would like to even engineer small-enough-cheap-enough DNA detectors to look for the 10-most-wanted or whatever, though, that is pushing the creep-o-meter up quite a bit. I’ve no doubt that sooner or later the usual civil liberties groups will jump into the fray and demand protections. Hopefully those working in these areas will think ahead that far.

Of course, you can’t help but be reminded of the similarities to the @home programs ranging from molecular folding to SETI. As mobile phones become more than that — mobile computing platforms, the prospect of finding ways to take advantage of millions of mobile units is compelling.

OTOH, all of these things either make money or help the organizations upstream — what about helping the millions of phone owners? What’s really in it for them? If you could come up with some way for the phone owner to profit, even with micro payments, I think you would have A LOT of people sign up. If I knew what that idea was, I probably wouldn’t post it here! However, I expect that whoever does come up with something like this will stand to make a lot of money….

-pfs

Originally posted: Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Well, I managed to sneak off and see JJ Abram’s “Cloverfield” yesterday. This is the JJ Abrams film that had that wonderfully mysterious and un-named trailer before last year’s “Transformers” romp. Between then and now JJ managed to maintain the air of mystery surrounding what we later learned would be called…. “Cloverfield.” I’m sorry, but, what is a Cloverfield? The name sounded like some light-hearted children’s flick or some 19th century period piece or something…. But we knew that wasn’t the case… after all, we’d all seen the head of Lady Liberty hurled through the New York skyline and smash into a dimly lit street like so much left-over from a garbage collector strike.

Lots of clues and speculation about the name abound on the net, including Cloverfield being the name of the street across from JJ’s studio or some such. It’s also well-discussed that, at least in the movie, Cloverfield is the Department of Defense codeword associated with the events taking place in a most unfortunate Manhattan.

Cloverfield has had a wonderfully devious viral marketing campaign. Lots and lots of speculative content was available online and, true to the movie’s handycam theme, more sites now have things like frame-by-frame dissections of what “really happened” to this character or that. Which brings me to something I rather liked about the film — the lack of completely gratuitous blood and core.

Some of the most disturbing moments take place around a corner or silhouetted behind a tent. Of course, with a relatively low budget of less than 25mil, I’m sure some of this is due to the reduced budget bullet for fake blood and such — OTOH, I strongly applaud this. It added to the mystery — I mean, if the audience had been splashed in offal, nobody would feel a need to capture video and post frame-by-frame analysis of what must have “really happened.”

Would that others would learn from such. Sometimes less really is more.

By now, I’m sure everyone who is remotely interested must be aware that the entire film is presented “as seen” on a character’s hand-held consumer-grade video camera, complete with disorienting shakiness and cleverly cut with snippets from the tape that was overwritten as the recording stops and starts. All of this adds up to providing a strong sense of “reality” to the film — no establishing shots, no sweeps, bleeds, cuts, etc., etc.

This is a “reality” you-tube-esque that I’m quite impressed with. It outperforms countless previous “blockbuster” films that sported enormous budgets and big stars (this film has all unknowns).

Lesson for web media?

Could something like Cloverfield work as an internet-only project? Perhaps serialized to take more time with character and story arcs? Sure, of course, assuming you can work out the economics. If you can build a large enough audience then advertising would be a no-brainer. If you grow enough, you could begin to distribute via, say, Tivo or Joost or even some of the cable networks themselves.

If, however, you have a more narrowly targeted audience, then your complete budget will have to be bootstrapped much lower. For example, I could see the performers from a good-sized comedy club getting together to create webisodes, but I really think you need to get some anchor advertisers onboad from the start. Create your trailer/pilot, build a following/interest, generate detailed demographics on your audience, and go look for enterprising advertisers who want to reach your audience.

Hey, if it were easy, anybody could do it….

In any event, the key to any of this is a dedication to making sure that the writing is first rate. We learned this years ago when we launched the first online series — an audio dramatization of a darkly themed science fiction story, “A Small Percentage” by Jim Cline. Jim produced a total of 42 episodes with a complete amateur cast. We had some complaints that our actors weren’t great, but people were HOOKED on the STORY. We were flamed if an episode was late and we had some pretty, well, rabid fans.

The downside to low-rent productions is that it is hard to get broader distribution through traditional channels — but the net isn’t always traditional. I’m convinced that someone is going to find the right chemistry of luck, timing and content and create a breakout success online.

But is the point to create a breakout? Can you just be successful online and forget the neolithic networks? Part of me wonders just how hard this really would be, I mean, my God, the total garbage the networks put up even before the writer’s strike? With a few exceptions, I can’t escape the notion that the vast bulk of what is aired simply fills dead-air and audiences watch it for lack of anything better to do.

I fully expect to see a totally online serial production that is both critically and commerically successful. Who knows, maybe JJ would sponsor something online — aspiring producers could send him their scripts, etc., and independents would produce locally themed webisodes within a controlled storyline. Something like that could even lend itself to eventual compilation DVDs and more…..

That would be cool.
-pfs

p.s.: It’s funny… everybody is now talking about how some viewers of Cloverfield are getting nauseous. I started to mention something about this in my original posting, but didn’t. I had taken a heavy-duty anti-biotic pill shortly before the film so I attributed my troubled tummy with the medicine.

Originally posted: Monday, January 07, 2008

Last year Microsoft got very ambitious and unveiled their Silverlight framework initiative Silverlight.Net. Silverlight is built on .Net 3.0 and is basically positioned as a direct competitor to Adobe Flash and the former Macromedia toolset. Microsoft provided a number of alpha/beta version of a broad toolset including an evolution of the Windows Media platform, as well as a good sprinkling of samples, training videos, some live events, a streaming CDN platform that “wasn’t competing with other CDNs,” the social website PopFly.com, etc.

Here’s the Silverlight Showcase: http://silverlight.net/Showcase/

This was more than some tools – this was an attempt to catalyze a state change in how sites are architected and position MS as THE dominant overall development platform.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I was pretty impressed with some of the tools, and some of the early adopter sites and examples were, well, they were cool. Also, the whole “vision thing” was quite ambitious, but this was a tall order. I wondered how serious MS really was – would they stick with it for as long as it would take to gain at least a respectable marketshare? Not surprisingly, so far, Microsoft seems to be pounding its head against the wall of established toolset inertia.

Well, it appears that MS is upping the ante. By some accounts MS is the # 8 site on the net, so there is certainly a whole lotta traffic there. Well, it seems that MS is embarking on a ‘project’ to replace the entire Microsoft site with one built on Silverlight. Can you say JOB SECURITY for some folks at Microsoft?

Of course, MS will start with some key portions of their site and I’m sure they reserve the right to change their minds, but here is the beta:

http://www.microsoft.com/beta/downloads/About.aspx

Bottom line? Microsoft has the deep pockets to stick with something like this if they really want to. The big question to me is just how serious are they? Will this be a 4-5 year experiment or will they stick with it for the long haul? Will they make the tools cheap enough for indy consultants to afford or will they aim this at the corporate market exclusively?

Personally, I’d like to see a better packaging of tools, more clearly delineating desktop from Internet development and a totally free Internet developer’s kit with some version of ALL the tools for cheap or even better, for free. Offer add-ons and nice templates for $, but if they want to get more developers out there building site with the tools, I think they need a better packaging of it than they have now.

Regardless, it seems like Silverlight is going to be around for “a while” – it will be interesting to see what happens.

Originally posted: Friday, December 14, 2007

The reports have been bubbling for weeks now. Looks like it’s now pretty official. RIP for Soft Warehouse, AKA COMPUSA.

Ok, I haven’t shopped there in ages. I honestly haven’t cared for the way they’ve positioned themselves for a long long time — ever since the switch from being geek oriented to pure consumer.

But there was a time, back when it was just Soft Warehouse. The first place we could go to buy those 8088/8086 chip upgrades for the original PC or some other incredible must-have piece of PC gadgetry or software on a 5.25″ floppy. Soft Warehouse ran those ads in the business section on page 3 that became your instant wish list, better than the old Sears wishbook. You’d go to the tiny storefront, stand in the line, and ask for your prized new toy.

Ah the days of youth and innocence.

For a time, they kept to their tech/geek roots. It was a place where there were STACKS of the latest hardware upgrades, drives, and miscellaneous.

These days I suppose portions of Fry’s has echoes of those times. Much better is one of my favorites, Altex (http://www.altex.com).

So, I won’t shed any tears over CompUSA, but I wonder if they have an old SoftWarehouse sign or memorabilia anywhere….

-pfs

Originally posted: Tuesday, December 04, 2007

So many video/media sites abound these days — we’ve come a long way in 12 years of Internet media! Here’s a partial list off the top of my head. Send me more!

http://www.5min.com
http://www.akimbo.com
http://video.aol.com/
http://www.babelgum.com
http://www.brightcove.com
http://www.cachelogic.com
http://www.clipsyndicate.com
http://www.dabble.com
http://www.dailymotion.com
http://www.everyzing.com
http://www.feedroom.com
http://www.godtube.com
http://video.google.com
http://www.ifilm.com
http://www.ifilm.com
http://www.joost.com
http://www.jumptv.com
http://www.likevid.com/video/
http://www.mediapublisher.com
http://www.mobitv.com
http://www.muvee.com
http://video.msn.com
http://www.peekvid.com
http://www.podtech.net
http://www.revision3.com
http://www.rgbnetworks.com
http://www.stage6.com
http://www.topix.com
http://www.usvo.com
http://www.valueclick.com
http://www.vbrick.com
http://www.veoh.com
http://www.volomedia.com
http://www.vudu.com
http://video.yahoo.com
http://www.youtube.com

Originally posted: Friday, November 02, 2007

Many moons ago I worked for LTV Missiles & Electronics. One of my pet projects there was an evaluation of then-available CAD/CAM systems. The state of the art, at the time, included things like multi-axis laser milling machines operated by numerical control systems that would take the output from the CAD system to create complex parts from steel, aluminum or other metals.

I recall how awesomely cool it seemed and imagined what it would be like someday when the technology didn’t cost millions and people could have fabrication machines in their homes – not to build missile components – but to build everyday household items, clothing, etc. The better machines capable of producing finer items would naturally cost more than Joe six-pack’s version – and the NC codes would be marketed in addition to – or instead of – actual merchandise by designers and retailers around the world. Factories and textiles too complex for home fabrication would still be needed – at the high end and low end of the spectrum.

I figured the rich would feel too far above fabbing their own stuff and the poor couldn’t affoard the equipment anyway – leaving the vast middle class to consume the raw materials and NC codes needed for their home fab units (not to mention fab unit ‘ugrades’).

In subsequent years as the 3D printers first became available to manufacture plastic machine part prototypes I smiled. Progress. Still far too expensive, but progress.

Today, 3D printers can be kitted for $2k-$3k. You’re still limited to simple materials, but it’s defiantly now in the realm of being cheap enough for America’s ever-inventive hobbyists to push hard on the envelope.

Manufacturers around the globe don’t need to lose sleep. Yet. The smart ones had better be looking down the road though. I’ve no doubt it will take a while for the technology to mature and create a significant market penetration – keep in mind that even simple bread makers are too complicated for most consumers to mess with. Perhaps some combination of ease-of-use and improved materials will develop to the point that non-techno-phobic college kids will eventually pick up on some future version as a way to live cheap.

I expect that before that happens though, you’ll see more of a cottage industry of micro-fabbers springing up like so many erstwhile micro-brewers. Don’t sneer – look at Samuel Adams brand. Obviously to make that happen several things have to happen first.

1) Right now fabbers are limited to mono-material systems. That is, items can only be made out of a single material. If the 3D printers can leap to the next level and allow for the deposition of diverse materials, then more complex items can be created.

2) A marketplace and exchange of “patterns” will need to enthusiastically grow. Product designers and “product artists” would evolve – perhaps akin to today’s fashion design houses.

3) Ugh – DRM. This issue needs to be figured out quickly. If we’ve learned anything it’s that digital content is ripe for bootlegging. If DRM for fab patterns is too cumbersome and draconian it will stifle creativity and market growth. If it is too lax, then incentive to create really good stuff will lag if people cant’ get paid for it.

4) The technology needs to be solid enough for it to be accepted. For example, let’s consider the idea of print-on-demand books. For years we’ve been promised that books will no longer need to be warehoused – your local bookstore would have a “book maker” machine in the back. Punch in the code for the latest best-seller and out-pops a hot-off-the-press copy for the customer. Sounds great, huh? Trouble is, it never worked. Yeah, there are machines to do it, but it turned out to be too, well, complicated and messy for book store employees to manage – and too expensive for the hardware – to make it viable. Not enough margin – it’s still cheaper to do it the old-fashioned way. And a book is relatively simple compared to more complex items, right? A 600 page book would have 300 sheets of paper, with text printed, cut and trimmed exactly to the right size, put in the right order, then glue the pages to the cover, which you have printed on cardstock and cut exactly the right way, and then glue the pages to the spine – in exactly the right spot, then fold the cover around the pages in such a way that the cover doesn’t bow or warp. Can it be done? Sure, Xerox and others have had machines to do this for years. They’re big, expensive and need lots of maintenance, care and feeding. Lesson learned.

Still, all the negatives aside, it seems clear to me that the opportunities are there to turn fabbing into much, much more than the current industrial users – and hobbyists, dream of today. Perhaps another avenue will be ships and armies on long deployments using the technology for on-the-fly parts and items. It would also seem like a natural thing for NASA to use on the space station and future missions to the moon and mars. But back here in suburbia, I think fabbing has the potential to reshape how we live, work, and play.

- Patrick Seaman

Originally posted: Thursday, August 02, 2007

So,

Putin has gone and invaded the North Pole. Put aside the Santa jokes. There’s a lot of money up there in oil and mineral resources and Putin figures who’s gonna stop him.

Hmmm, International treaty-shmeaty. So what about breaking treaties….. Forget about the megabucks or the idea our friendly ex-KGB director controlling lord knows how much oil, etc.

Oh, and we all know how, er… environmentally sensitive the Russians are.

What I want to know is where is our revered United Nations and their oh-so-scary-and-effective resolutions?

For that matter, where is Greenpeace? Where is the flotilla of environmentalists? Where are the protesters? The seal-huggers? Where is the international outrage and condemnation?

Hmmm, someone should do a hoax new release telling the whole story, replacing “Russia” with “Exxon” and sit back to see the howls and screams from granola-crunching whale lovers everywhere…..

Yeah… that would do it. I know Putin is quivering……

-pfs

Originally posted: Saturday, June 30, 2007

4 years ago I pitched a game to a now defunct game division of a major publisher. The prospects for the game were going swimmingly until the prospects for the game company itself began to unravel. I digress. The game was called “Earth Now!” and it was to use a massive P2P engine/architecture (originally developed for the Defense Department) to build a “A massively multiplayer online “Reality Game” that mirrors actual geo-political conditions, updated daily by intelligent agents from actual news service feeds. Play a soldier, spy or businessman – a terrorist, reporter, diplomat, or sports figure – an entertainer, religious leader or zealot – China -vs- Taiwan, Freedom fighters -vs- Government loyalists.” Long story — the proposal didn’t seem to go anywhere and my old company, Timberwolf Press, isn’t around anymore either.
4 years ago I pitched a game to a now defunct game division of a major publisher. The prospects for the game were going swimmingly until the prospects for the game company itself began to unravel. I digress. The game was called “Earth Now!” and it was to use a massive P2P engine/architecture (originally developed for the Defense Department) to build a “A massively multiplayer online “Reality Game” that mirrors actual geo-political conditions, updated daily by intelligent agents from actual news service feeds. Play a soldier, spy or businessman – a terrorist, reporter, diplomat, or sports figure – an entertainer, religious leader or zealot – China -vs- Taiwan, Freedom fighters -vs- Government loyalists.” Long story — the proposal didn’t seem to go anywhere and my old company, Timberwolf Press, isn’t around anymore either.

Now I read about a DOD project that is using supercomputers to model the earth (copied from Slashdot): “The US Department of Defense (DOD) may already be creating a copy of you in an alternate reality. Putting supercomputers to an innovative use, the military is simulating our planet in an effort to predict the outcome of different scenarios. They might run tests to see how long ‘you’ can go without food or water, or how ‘you’ will respond to televised propaganda. Billions of nodes are created in the system, intended to reflect every man, woman, and child. ‘Called the Sentient World Simulation (SWS), it will be a “synthetic mirror of the real world with automated continuous calibration with respect to current real-world information”, according to a concept paper for the project. Simulex is the company developing these systems, and they list pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and defense contractor Lockheed Martin among their private sector clients. The U.S. military is their biggest customer, apparently now running the most complex version of the system. JFCOM-9 is now capable of running real-time simulations for up to 62 nations, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and China. The simulations gobble up breaking news, census data, economic indicators, and climactic events in the real world, along with proprietary information such as military intelligence.”

Here’s a description from my old game proposal:

REALITY GAME OF PRESENT-DAY EARTH
- Incorporates global real-world events, updated daily
- Players around the world can spy, soldier, compete, entertain, politic, preach, build, market, & sell virtual goods & services
- Multinational in scope, including multilingual player support
- Game primarily aimed at: U.S.A., U.K., Eastren/Western Europe & Asia
- Characters/Avatars impacted by the real-world events
- Virtual-world economy impacted by real-world events
- Distributed processing & peer-to-peer architecture allows for immediate large-scale world-wide playerbase – avoiding problems such as with WWII Online – (2002 launch problems) that had insufficient “server farms” to support the game
- Game design encourages and rewards group play & cooperation
- Sponsored chat/API with Yahoo, AOL & MSN chat
- API for 3rd party intelligent agents
- Built-in product placement
- Autonomous play available when offline

INCORPORATING REALITY
- World news feeds are mined to capture key events
- Natural catastrophe, war, business, sports, religion, economic trends, etc.
- Select stocks are reflected in game economy – updated from daily index feeds
- Players can build, market & sell virtual products & services
- Avatars/characters age
- Properties and items “degrade” over time – avoiding economic-model problems with this that some games have experienced
- Avatars/characters have propensities reflecting their characteristics
- Avatars/characters have maintenance cost reflecting characteristics

Anyway… I always thought this would be a valuable project — just didn’t have the resources at the time to push it harder or farther. Oh well!

-pfs