http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/technology/28cool.html?_r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin
Former employees of Google are prepared to take on this massive search engine. Anna Patterson, a former Google employee of two years, just launched a new search engine to compete with Google. Cuil, pronounced ‘cool’, as it is named, is the latest company launched to compete with Google’s search engine.
Of course these founders realize that, essentially, the public must decide which search engine will be number one. In June, Google accounted for 61.5% of search inquiries, while Yahoo had 20.9%, and Microsoft had 9.2%.
Google has been the leading search engine for the past few years. For example, in 2005, they were the leader in search inquiries with 84% of consumers making it their default search engine. But Yahoo, Microsoft, and Ask Jeeves were already climbing the list of search engines. Yahoo increased by 11%, MSN by 8%, and Ask Jeeves by 12%.
However, analysts believe Cuil has a chance, because of its founders. Armed with former Google insiders and top researchers, this company has many valuable resources backing it. These researchers claim that Cuil has 120 billion web pages in its index, making it the largest search engine than any other.
In my opinion, this is a brave attempt on Cuil’s part. Not only do they have to compete with Google, but, essentially, Cuil also has to gain market share from Yahoo and Microsoft. There are large companies out there competing with Google everyday, and Google still seems to rein the web.
Do I think it is impossible? No, but it will be a challenge. It is tough enough for new businesses to enter the market anyway, but to openly claim that you are directly competing with a large company like Google is brave.
More power to Cuil if they can achieve this goal. I think it is great for other companies to challenge Google. The competition may inspire creativity and new concepts for either organization.
Reference: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search/Google-Reigns-as-Its-Competitors-Gain/
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
High-Tech Monitors Help Safe Drivers Save on Insurance -- Journal 10 - August 3, 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/29/driver.monitoring.ap/index.html
Progressive Insurance Corporation has recently launched a new program to give its drivers the chance to lower their insurance premiums. High-tech monitors placed on vehicles at the owner’s discretion are now making it possible to monitor what time people drive, how far they drive, how fast they accelerate, and how many times they hit the brakes. Based upon this information recorded by monitors, drivers can either have their insurance premiums reduced or pay a surcharge.
The voluntary program allows the insurance company to monitor instances previously mentioned to determine whether or not the driver is a ‘safe driver’. Insurance premiums will be reduced by 10% the first year just by signing up, and if they meet safe driver criteria, their rates could decrease by 60% based on their driving patterns. If they enroll and fail to meet safe driver standards, drivers could end up paying as much as a 9% surcharge.
Although the monitoring system does not collect where drivers actually go, some groups do express a concern for privacy invasions associated with the system. They claim that once the data is projected to the insurance companies, it becomes theirs.
I personally do not believe this is a bad idea completely. Since the system does not track people where they go, I do not view it as an invasion of privacy. Also, people voluntarily sign up to enroll in the program, so nobody is forcing them to participate.
I also find it hard to set standards for driving. There are many unusual circumstances that happen that may not be in the driver’s control. For example, if a deer runs in front of you, you have no choice but to either stand on the brakes or hit the deer. Both choices result in negatives on the monitoring system. I would hope the system allows for a set number of uncontrollable instances before it begins tacking on a surcharge.
Progressive Insurance Company certainly is not the only company that uses monitoring to help create safe drivers. For example, in 2007, American Family Insurance Company began a Teen Safe Driver program that allows an installed camera to take pictures of the road and the teen whenever it detects a swerve, crash, or slamming on the brakes. It then e-mails the pictures to mom and dad. The program does not necessarily offer discounts for the teen drivers, but it does help to create safer, more cautious drivers on the roads.
Reference:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070914/ai_n20508925
Progressive Insurance Corporation has recently launched a new program to give its drivers the chance to lower their insurance premiums. High-tech monitors placed on vehicles at the owner’s discretion are now making it possible to monitor what time people drive, how far they drive, how fast they accelerate, and how many times they hit the brakes. Based upon this information recorded by monitors, drivers can either have their insurance premiums reduced or pay a surcharge.
The voluntary program allows the insurance company to monitor instances previously mentioned to determine whether or not the driver is a ‘safe driver’. Insurance premiums will be reduced by 10% the first year just by signing up, and if they meet safe driver criteria, their rates could decrease by 60% based on their driving patterns. If they enroll and fail to meet safe driver standards, drivers could end up paying as much as a 9% surcharge.
Although the monitoring system does not collect where drivers actually go, some groups do express a concern for privacy invasions associated with the system. They claim that once the data is projected to the insurance companies, it becomes theirs.
I personally do not believe this is a bad idea completely. Since the system does not track people where they go, I do not view it as an invasion of privacy. Also, people voluntarily sign up to enroll in the program, so nobody is forcing them to participate.
I also find it hard to set standards for driving. There are many unusual circumstances that happen that may not be in the driver’s control. For example, if a deer runs in front of you, you have no choice but to either stand on the brakes or hit the deer. Both choices result in negatives on the monitoring system. I would hope the system allows for a set number of uncontrollable instances before it begins tacking on a surcharge.
Progressive Insurance Company certainly is not the only company that uses monitoring to help create safe drivers. For example, in 2007, American Family Insurance Company began a Teen Safe Driver program that allows an installed camera to take pictures of the road and the teen whenever it detects a swerve, crash, or slamming on the brakes. It then e-mails the pictures to mom and dad. The program does not necessarily offer discounts for the teen drivers, but it does help to create safer, more cautious drivers on the roads.
Reference:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070914/ai_n20508925
Friday, July 25, 2008
Google Launches New Space Race to the Moon -- Journal 9 - July 27, 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/06/20/google.lunar.xprize/index.html
Google recently launched their own new space race to the moon. The multi-billion dollar company is offering $20 million to the first privately-funded team that can land on the moon. The rover must land on the moon’s surface, have it travel 500 meters or more, and send back data, photos, and video. This all has to be done by December 31, 2012. After this date has passed, the prize money drops to $15 million, and after 2014, there is no more prize offered.
Why is Google offering this incentive money to private teams? They believe that space travel should not be limited to only government-funded programs, but open to everyone. As of right now, there are about 13 teams officially participating in this new race to space, but the foundation expects that number to grow to 25.
Google also says it is not worried about anyone faking the mission. The teams must submit a mission plan as well as genuine photos and videos, a measure that the prize team says will be their assurance.
Just last month, in June, Google co-founder, Sergey Brin, made a $5 million down payment to book a seat on a future private orbital flight. This flight is set to take place in 2011 and will be the first private space flight ever. The initial payment only covers the option for a seat during the flight, but the entire flight could cost upwards of $35 million.
I find Google’s interest in space flights fascinating, and a bit scary. Yes, NASA has had problems in the past with space flights, but they pretty much have a competitive advantage over anyone else attempting to orbit in space. They have the funds and the technology to do so.
Google’s ‘sponsorship’, so to speak, of private space flights is an interesting concept. I guess it is just incentive or encouragement for others to begin paving the way for everyone to be able to do it one day. Although the $20 million will not cover the complete cost of a space flight, I assume teams find it appealing to at least get back some compensation.
Reference:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7449072.stm
Google recently launched their own new space race to the moon. The multi-billion dollar company is offering $20 million to the first privately-funded team that can land on the moon. The rover must land on the moon’s surface, have it travel 500 meters or more, and send back data, photos, and video. This all has to be done by December 31, 2012. After this date has passed, the prize money drops to $15 million, and after 2014, there is no more prize offered.
Why is Google offering this incentive money to private teams? They believe that space travel should not be limited to only government-funded programs, but open to everyone. As of right now, there are about 13 teams officially participating in this new race to space, but the foundation expects that number to grow to 25.
Google also says it is not worried about anyone faking the mission. The teams must submit a mission plan as well as genuine photos and videos, a measure that the prize team says will be their assurance.
Just last month, in June, Google co-founder, Sergey Brin, made a $5 million down payment to book a seat on a future private orbital flight. This flight is set to take place in 2011 and will be the first private space flight ever. The initial payment only covers the option for a seat during the flight, but the entire flight could cost upwards of $35 million.
I find Google’s interest in space flights fascinating, and a bit scary. Yes, NASA has had problems in the past with space flights, but they pretty much have a competitive advantage over anyone else attempting to orbit in space. They have the funds and the technology to do so.
Google’s ‘sponsorship’, so to speak, of private space flights is an interesting concept. I guess it is just incentive or encouragement for others to begin paving the way for everyone to be able to do it one day. Although the $20 million will not cover the complete cost of a space flight, I assume teams find it appealing to at least get back some compensation.
Reference:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7449072.stm
Facebook: Movement or Business? -- Journal 8 - July 27, 2008
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1826081,00.html?cnn=yes
Time Magazine recently wrote an article about Facebook, asking whether it was a business or a ‘movement’, a term the social networking site’s CEO likes to call it. Just over one year ago, Zuckerberg reported that Facebook had 24 million users, two-thirds of whom were located outside of the United States. Now, only one year later that number has skyrocketed. Facebook now has a total of 90 million users worldwide, and Zuckerberg has pretty much guaranteed that number would reach 100 million before the year 2008 was over.
With those numbers on the rise, so is their number of advertisers. And with that, investment money is also. Facebook now has over 2 million programmers, which attracts a cool $200 million in investment.
Last year, Zuckerberg called it a ‘movement’ at their annual F8 meeting. But is that all it is or is it merely another business unit? For example, Microsoft offered to buy the social networking site for $6 billion last year. Why would Microsoft be so interested in Facebook if it were not a revenue-generating business?
To speculate whether Facebook should be considered a business or a ‘movement’ seems like a redundant question with an irrelevant link. Yes, Facebook is a ‘movement’ in itself, as it is one of the first of its kind. But, of course, it is also a business. Its founders and CEO are there to make Facebook thrive. They are in it for money, just like everyone else. And why not? If you can create a unique product and continually expand on it, why not make it work for you?
Zuckerberg’s calling Facebook a ‘movement’ will not downplay what it really is. It is a business to all of the key players, and they see an opportunity that they are going to harvest. The ‘movement’ theory is good, well, in theory. Facebook is more of a social movement than anything, but to question its business characteristics seems to discredit this site’s success.
Reference:
http://microsoft.blognewschannel.com/archives/2007/07/12/microsoft-to-buy-facebook-for-6-billion/
Time Magazine recently wrote an article about Facebook, asking whether it was a business or a ‘movement’, a term the social networking site’s CEO likes to call it. Just over one year ago, Zuckerberg reported that Facebook had 24 million users, two-thirds of whom were located outside of the United States. Now, only one year later that number has skyrocketed. Facebook now has a total of 90 million users worldwide, and Zuckerberg has pretty much guaranteed that number would reach 100 million before the year 2008 was over.
With those numbers on the rise, so is their number of advertisers. And with that, investment money is also. Facebook now has over 2 million programmers, which attracts a cool $200 million in investment.
Last year, Zuckerberg called it a ‘movement’ at their annual F8 meeting. But is that all it is or is it merely another business unit? For example, Microsoft offered to buy the social networking site for $6 billion last year. Why would Microsoft be so interested in Facebook if it were not a revenue-generating business?
To speculate whether Facebook should be considered a business or a ‘movement’ seems like a redundant question with an irrelevant link. Yes, Facebook is a ‘movement’ in itself, as it is one of the first of its kind. But, of course, it is also a business. Its founders and CEO are there to make Facebook thrive. They are in it for money, just like everyone else. And why not? If you can create a unique product and continually expand on it, why not make it work for you?
Zuckerberg’s calling Facebook a ‘movement’ will not downplay what it really is. It is a business to all of the key players, and they see an opportunity that they are going to harvest. The ‘movement’ theory is good, well, in theory. Facebook is more of a social movement than anything, but to question its business characteristics seems to discredit this site’s success.
Reference:
http://microsoft.blognewschannel.com/archives/2007/07/12/microsoft-to-buy-facebook-for-6-billion/
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Judge: eBay Not Liable For Fakes -- Journal 7 - July 27, 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/biztech/07/14/ebay.tiffany.ap/index.html
Monday, July 14, a federal court judge ruled that eBay is not to be held liable for the sell of counterfeit Tiffany & Co. goods on its site. EBay is not responsible for monitoring trademarks on its goods, but individual companies are. It is not sufficient enough to say that eBay should be liable based on the sole knowledge that there may or may not be counterfeit items for sale on its auction site.
I agree with the court’s ruling about eBay not being held liable for counterfeit goods sold on its site. For a company who invests large amounts of capital in combating the sell of counterfeits, I would say they are doing their part. As eBay is set up as an auction site with millions of buyers and sellers, it would be hard to police every individual logged on. However, eBay tries. They spend tens of millions every year just to fight online counterfeiting. They also suspend and block users who are in violation of these terms. In 2007 alone, they blocked 50,000 sellers and blocked another 40,000 users from returning.
However, eBay has not always come out on top in this matter. Just last month, in June, a French court ruled that eBay pay Louis Vuitton, $61 million in damages for the sell of its counterfeit products online. The court claimed that eBay did not do enough to ensure that goods were genuine, because over 90 percent of Louis Vuitton goods sole through the auction site were counterfeit.
Although eBay is seeking to appeal the June 2008 ruling, the guidelines seem so distorted in this matter. Why is it that one judge holds individual companies liable for their own goods being counterfeited and another holds eBay liable? Yes, the lines are blurred on who is right and who is wrong here, but I believe it can only be combated through a joint effort. If both companies are genuinely trying to police the counterfeiters, why pour money into lawsuits? Would it not be more functional to use that money for a joint collaboration to combat counterfeiters instead?
Reference: http://www.nationaljewelernetwork.com/njn/content_display/high_volume/e3i5b79f51055d2eac9e53588e89f314515
Monday, July 14, a federal court judge ruled that eBay is not to be held liable for the sell of counterfeit Tiffany & Co. goods on its site. EBay is not responsible for monitoring trademarks on its goods, but individual companies are. It is not sufficient enough to say that eBay should be liable based on the sole knowledge that there may or may not be counterfeit items for sale on its auction site.
I agree with the court’s ruling about eBay not being held liable for counterfeit goods sold on its site. For a company who invests large amounts of capital in combating the sell of counterfeits, I would say they are doing their part. As eBay is set up as an auction site with millions of buyers and sellers, it would be hard to police every individual logged on. However, eBay tries. They spend tens of millions every year just to fight online counterfeiting. They also suspend and block users who are in violation of these terms. In 2007 alone, they blocked 50,000 sellers and blocked another 40,000 users from returning.
However, eBay has not always come out on top in this matter. Just last month, in June, a French court ruled that eBay pay Louis Vuitton, $61 million in damages for the sell of its counterfeit products online. The court claimed that eBay did not do enough to ensure that goods were genuine, because over 90 percent of Louis Vuitton goods sole through the auction site were counterfeit.
Although eBay is seeking to appeal the June 2008 ruling, the guidelines seem so distorted in this matter. Why is it that one judge holds individual companies liable for their own goods being counterfeited and another holds eBay liable? Yes, the lines are blurred on who is right and who is wrong here, but I believe it can only be combated through a joint effort. If both companies are genuinely trying to police the counterfeiters, why pour money into lawsuits? Would it not be more functional to use that money for a joint collaboration to combat counterfeiters instead?
Reference: http://www.nationaljewelernetwork.com/njn/content_display/high_volume/e3i5b79f51055d2eac9e53588e89f314515
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Google Deliberately Sells Fewer Ads - And May Have Gone Too Far -- Journal 6 - July 20, 2008
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/google-deliberately-sells-fewer-ads-and-may-have-gone-too-far/index.html?ref=technology
The popular search engine, Google.com, is selling fewer ads. Not because it has to, but because it chooses to do so. Google would rather focus on placing quality ads online, rather than the quantity of ads displayed. They would rather display what users want to see than false or misleading ads.
Google makes no predictions about its sales and profits, so they do not have to answer questions about whether or not they ‘missed the mark’. Although they do not predict these, Google also claims they may have taken it a little bit too far. They do not want to end up with no ads, so they confess it was not the ideal strategy.
In 2005, Google saw the value of advertising on the web. In 2004 alone, advertisers in the United States spent $140 billion. Of that number, $8.4 billion went into online advertising. Google began testing non-search related ads for its outside partners. These ads would have to be related neither to the content of the publishing web site, nor would it have to be text-based. It could be graphics and/or animations that attracted these viewers to the web sites in the ads.
I find it interesting that only three years ago, Google and Yahoo were in close competition to gain advertisers for their web sites, and now, Google is eliminating some of them. Google must be aware of who they eliminate though. As they have switched from a cost-per-click form of payment, Google now takes the highest bidders for advertisers. That is, they now accept ads from the highest payer regardless of ad content.
Personally, I like the idea of quality over quantity. I would much rather see legitimate ads that may be of some use, rather than false information that congests the screen. If Google spent more time researching which ads users actually clicked on or read, they could potentially hone in on what consumers wanted. In turn, they could eliminate the space taken by useless ads. By doing so, they remain favorable in the consumers’ eyes, valuable in the advertisers’ eyes, and Google profits, nonetheless.
Reference: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=161502592
The popular search engine, Google.com, is selling fewer ads. Not because it has to, but because it chooses to do so. Google would rather focus on placing quality ads online, rather than the quantity of ads displayed. They would rather display what users want to see than false or misleading ads.
Google makes no predictions about its sales and profits, so they do not have to answer questions about whether or not they ‘missed the mark’. Although they do not predict these, Google also claims they may have taken it a little bit too far. They do not want to end up with no ads, so they confess it was not the ideal strategy.
In 2005, Google saw the value of advertising on the web. In 2004 alone, advertisers in the United States spent $140 billion. Of that number, $8.4 billion went into online advertising. Google began testing non-search related ads for its outside partners. These ads would have to be related neither to the content of the publishing web site, nor would it have to be text-based. It could be graphics and/or animations that attracted these viewers to the web sites in the ads.
I find it interesting that only three years ago, Google and Yahoo were in close competition to gain advertisers for their web sites, and now, Google is eliminating some of them. Google must be aware of who they eliminate though. As they have switched from a cost-per-click form of payment, Google now takes the highest bidders for advertisers. That is, they now accept ads from the highest payer regardless of ad content.
Personally, I like the idea of quality over quantity. I would much rather see legitimate ads that may be of some use, rather than false information that congests the screen. If Google spent more time researching which ads users actually clicked on or read, they could potentially hone in on what consumers wanted. In turn, they could eliminate the space taken by useless ads. By doing so, they remain favorable in the consumers’ eyes, valuable in the advertisers’ eyes, and Google profits, nonetheless.
Reference: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=161502592
Smart Windshields May Aid the Aging -- Journal 5 - July 20, 2008
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2008/07/18/smart_windshields_may_aid_the_aging/
General Motors Corporation is currently researching technology that would allow aging drivers to see the road better. This ‘Smart Windshield’ consists of innovative technology combined with infrared sensors and ultraviolet lights that would light up lines on the road and anything that might be in the car’s path, such as animals or pedestrians.
The Smart Windshield is specifically targeted at the older population. Since they typically have more problems with eyesight, GM is concerned about catering to this aging group. With the expectation that those over the age of 65 will account for 20% of the population, they find it profitable to market this niche group.
The Smart Windshield seems like a great investment for all automotive manufacturers to consider. Not only will it help the aging population, but others may also feel comfortable using its technology. For example, when traveling at night, I would love to have something like a Smart Windshield that helped outline the road. For someone who lives out in rural areas, this could become a live saver.
Yes, it has a lot of costs associated with technology and research and development, but anyone who can successfully create a product like this could gain a competitive advantage over other automobile manufacturers. As consumers become more and more concerned about safety, a feature such as this could aid buyers in determining which product to purchase.
Some luxury cars are already coming equipped with similar technology. For example, the Cadillac XLR features a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) that is projected onto the windshield. This ‘Head Up’ feature, as it is appropriately named, features a projected speedometer, turn signal indicators, audio data, gear indication, and cruise control settings. This virtually frees up any need for the driver to remove his eyes from the road.
If General Motors can produce a car that combines all of these features but uphold safety as its main goal, they just might make a comeback in today’s economy. By expanding on Cadillac’s LCD technology, I think it is possible they create a car with one of the best safety features available.
Reference: http://www2.dupont.com/Automotive/en_US/applications/caseStudies/case178.html
General Motors Corporation is currently researching technology that would allow aging drivers to see the road better. This ‘Smart Windshield’ consists of innovative technology combined with infrared sensors and ultraviolet lights that would light up lines on the road and anything that might be in the car’s path, such as animals or pedestrians.
The Smart Windshield is specifically targeted at the older population. Since they typically have more problems with eyesight, GM is concerned about catering to this aging group. With the expectation that those over the age of 65 will account for 20% of the population, they find it profitable to market this niche group.
The Smart Windshield seems like a great investment for all automotive manufacturers to consider. Not only will it help the aging population, but others may also feel comfortable using its technology. For example, when traveling at night, I would love to have something like a Smart Windshield that helped outline the road. For someone who lives out in rural areas, this could become a live saver.
Yes, it has a lot of costs associated with technology and research and development, but anyone who can successfully create a product like this could gain a competitive advantage over other automobile manufacturers. As consumers become more and more concerned about safety, a feature such as this could aid buyers in determining which product to purchase.
Some luxury cars are already coming equipped with similar technology. For example, the Cadillac XLR features a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) that is projected onto the windshield. This ‘Head Up’ feature, as it is appropriately named, features a projected speedometer, turn signal indicators, audio data, gear indication, and cruise control settings. This virtually frees up any need for the driver to remove his eyes from the road.
If General Motors can produce a car that combines all of these features but uphold safety as its main goal, they just might make a comeback in today’s economy. By expanding on Cadillac’s LCD technology, I think it is possible they create a car with one of the best safety features available.
Reference: http://www2.dupont.com/Automotive/en_US/applications/caseStudies/case178.html
Amazon Plans and Online Store for Movies and TV Shows -- Journal 4 - July 20, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/technology/17amazon.html?_r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin
Amazon is now looking for a new way to enter consumers’ homes. With the goal of making other Amazon products more prevalent, they are seeking to launch a new product of Amazon Video on Demand. Different from their past products, Amazon Video on Demand allows users to ‘store’ purchased videos in a folder hosted on Amazon’s servers. By doing so, these movies can be viewed from different computers, and also, helps eliminate worries of piracy.
Amazon Video on Demand is also teaming up with Sony Bravia to have a pre-programmed channel to access these videos on televisions, rather than solely on computers. Amazon is also working to develop partnerships with other television producers that come pre-equipped with this technology.
Although Amazon Video on Demand is not expected to generate high profits for the company, this product seems like a great expansion to their line of technology. Their sole intention is to make consumers more aware of Amazon by brining it closer to everyone.
With rising costs of gas, movie tickets, and everything else in the economy, Americans are now turning to more cost-saving options. I, for one, rarely go to movie theaters anymore. Why not wait until it is available in my own home? I can then watch it as many times as I like and with as many people as I wish.
For example, Time Warner Cable launched Movies on Demand in 2002 for its digital cable subscribers. This became a strategic move in a couple of ways. First, it encouraged viewers to upgrade their traditional cable to digital cable, a move that costs consumers $10 more per month. Second, it also opened a new revenue generating path by offering new products and services to its consumers.
As Time Warner Cable’s Movies on Demand took off, I find it a smart move for Amazon to jump into the game. By partnering with the makers of televisions, it becomes a standard feature on certain brands. For regions not offered products such as Movies on Demand by their cable providers, Amazon becomes the ‘monopoly’ of these lines.
Reference: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01EEDC163DF935A25753C1A9649C8B63
Amazon is now looking for a new way to enter consumers’ homes. With the goal of making other Amazon products more prevalent, they are seeking to launch a new product of Amazon Video on Demand. Different from their past products, Amazon Video on Demand allows users to ‘store’ purchased videos in a folder hosted on Amazon’s servers. By doing so, these movies can be viewed from different computers, and also, helps eliminate worries of piracy.
Amazon Video on Demand is also teaming up with Sony Bravia to have a pre-programmed channel to access these videos on televisions, rather than solely on computers. Amazon is also working to develop partnerships with other television producers that come pre-equipped with this technology.
Although Amazon Video on Demand is not expected to generate high profits for the company, this product seems like a great expansion to their line of technology. Their sole intention is to make consumers more aware of Amazon by brining it closer to everyone.
With rising costs of gas, movie tickets, and everything else in the economy, Americans are now turning to more cost-saving options. I, for one, rarely go to movie theaters anymore. Why not wait until it is available in my own home? I can then watch it as many times as I like and with as many people as I wish.
For example, Time Warner Cable launched Movies on Demand in 2002 for its digital cable subscribers. This became a strategic move in a couple of ways. First, it encouraged viewers to upgrade their traditional cable to digital cable, a move that costs consumers $10 more per month. Second, it also opened a new revenue generating path by offering new products and services to its consumers.
As Time Warner Cable’s Movies on Demand took off, I find it a smart move for Amazon to jump into the game. By partnering with the makers of televisions, it becomes a standard feature on certain brands. For regions not offered products such as Movies on Demand by their cable providers, Amazon becomes the ‘monopoly’ of these lines.
Reference: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01EEDC163DF935A25753C1A9649C8B63
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Can’t Find a Parking Spot? Check Smartphone. -- Journal 3 -- July 13, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/business/12newpark.html
In the years that I have been coming to this University, how nice would it have been to have a SmartPhone to alert me of available parking spaces? Two years ago, in one of my Business classes, we were to present a plan that would convince students to support the growth of this campus. My group and I devised a parking system that would send alerts to students’ cell phones about available spaces and empty lots. Low and behold, San Francisco beat us to it!
I am completely for this real-time parking notification system. Although the start up costs are great (i.e. $95.5 million for two years), the long term costs are insignificant. For example, studies found that 28 percent to 45 percent of traffic in New York City was generated by people circling the blocks to find a parking space. Researchers also found that in just a 15-block area of Manhattan, drivers put an average of 366,000 miles on their car in only one year. They also found that in a small business section of Los Angeles, people cruising for parking spaces was equivalent to 38 trips around the world, burned 47,000 gallons of gasoline, and produced 730 tons of carbon dioxide.
Not only are these figures alarming, but they are also dangerous for our society in the future. If these numbers are only a small sample of certain cities, imagine what the entire U.S. produces while searching for parking spaces daily. These numbers do not even account for typical city or highway travel. It reflects only time spent merely looking for a place to park!
A SmartPhone or, perhaps, even illuminated displays at the entry of each lot could save us time, money, and our future well-being. This technology could become a life-saving tool, and when put into perspective, the future implications on our society are far greater than expenses incurred at startup. Yes, it is an expensive program, but it is something we should consider implementing for the sake of our future.
In the years that I have been coming to this University, how nice would it have been to have a SmartPhone to alert me of available parking spaces? Two years ago, in one of my Business classes, we were to present a plan that would convince students to support the growth of this campus. My group and I devised a parking system that would send alerts to students’ cell phones about available spaces and empty lots. Low and behold, San Francisco beat us to it!
I am completely for this real-time parking notification system. Although the start up costs are great (i.e. $95.5 million for two years), the long term costs are insignificant. For example, studies found that 28 percent to 45 percent of traffic in New York City was generated by people circling the blocks to find a parking space. Researchers also found that in just a 15-block area of Manhattan, drivers put an average of 366,000 miles on their car in only one year. They also found that in a small business section of Los Angeles, people cruising for parking spaces was equivalent to 38 trips around the world, burned 47,000 gallons of gasoline, and produced 730 tons of carbon dioxide.
Not only are these figures alarming, but they are also dangerous for our society in the future. If these numbers are only a small sample of certain cities, imagine what the entire U.S. produces while searching for parking spaces daily. These numbers do not even account for typical city or highway travel. It reflects only time spent merely looking for a place to park!
A SmartPhone or, perhaps, even illuminated displays at the entry of each lot could save us time, money, and our future well-being. This technology could become a life-saving tool, and when put into perspective, the future implications on our society are far greater than expenses incurred at startup. Yes, it is an expensive program, but it is something we should consider implementing for the sake of our future.
YouTube Ordered to Reveal its Users -- Journal 2 -- July 13, 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/biztech/07/03/youtubelawsuit.ap/index.html
YouTube has become one of the world’s largest online video hosting and viewing websites in the world. As a subsidiary of Google, its current lawsuit with Viacom has become more like a $1 billion battle over copyright infringement.
Courts ordered YouTube to turn over its records of account holders to the plaintiff, Viacom, but in return, YouTube argues that it is too time-consuming to compile a list equivalent to 12 million books and would violate users anonymity rights. YouTube has requested they have time to anonymize all records before producing them in court.
As a YouTube viewer, I can see both sides of the argument. On one hand, I would not feel comfortable knowing my name and IP address have been turned over to the courts, but on the other hand, I would not be concerned as I do not use YouTube for illegal means. If the courts merely want to know if users view copyrighted materials more than they do amateur clips, I feel that anonymous logs of videos viewed would be more suitable than personal user information. When the case in matter is about YouTube ‘willfully’ infringing on copyrighted material, YouTube should be required to produce records of how often videos have been viewed, rather than who views them and when they were viewed.
Viacom is not looking for individuals posting and viewing copyrighted material, so personal information should not be in question. It seems irrelevant for this court case in particular. If Viacom decides to pursue legal action against the posters of illegal and/or copyrighted materials, then personal information should be called into question. For example, in another case against internet pornography, Google and other search engines were ordered to turn over records and lists of requests made by users. Once again, if the case in question is searching for individuals looking for illegal subject matter, such as child pornography online, user information is relevant. If it is merely a case of Google’s aiding in illegal activity, I find private information irrelevant, and the courts should stick to the ease of access and how often an illegal request was made, not by whom.
As viewer of YouTube, I applaud them for their anonymity concerns. Until the courts begin looking for and cracking down on the individuals posting illegal or copyrighted material, there is no need for all users private information to be disclosed.
YouTube has become one of the world’s largest online video hosting and viewing websites in the world. As a subsidiary of Google, its current lawsuit with Viacom has become more like a $1 billion battle over copyright infringement.
Courts ordered YouTube to turn over its records of account holders to the plaintiff, Viacom, but in return, YouTube argues that it is too time-consuming to compile a list equivalent to 12 million books and would violate users anonymity rights. YouTube has requested they have time to anonymize all records before producing them in court.
As a YouTube viewer, I can see both sides of the argument. On one hand, I would not feel comfortable knowing my name and IP address have been turned over to the courts, but on the other hand, I would not be concerned as I do not use YouTube for illegal means. If the courts merely want to know if users view copyrighted materials more than they do amateur clips, I feel that anonymous logs of videos viewed would be more suitable than personal user information. When the case in matter is about YouTube ‘willfully’ infringing on copyrighted material, YouTube should be required to produce records of how often videos have been viewed, rather than who views them and when they were viewed.
Viacom is not looking for individuals posting and viewing copyrighted material, so personal information should not be in question. It seems irrelevant for this court case in particular. If Viacom decides to pursue legal action against the posters of illegal and/or copyrighted materials, then personal information should be called into question. For example, in another case against internet pornography, Google and other search engines were ordered to turn over records and lists of requests made by users. Once again, if the case in question is searching for individuals looking for illegal subject matter, such as child pornography online, user information is relevant. If it is merely a case of Google’s aiding in illegal activity, I find private information irrelevant, and the courts should stick to the ease of access and how often an illegal request was made, not by whom.
As viewer of YouTube, I applaud them for their anonymity concerns. Until the courts begin looking for and cracking down on the individuals posting illegal or copyrighted material, there is no need for all users private information to be disclosed.
Technology Reshapes America's Classrooms -- Journal 1 -- July 13, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-usa-education-technology.html?em&ex=1215748800&en=54a9e45e756f7aa4&ei=5087%0A
Technology offers many benefits for our educational institutions, but at what cost? While the majority of its impact is positive and the accounting costs are more feasible, there are economic costs to be considered.
I believe the use of technology is an overall positive thing in that it frees up time for teachers, so they may focus on specific problem areas with individuals. Also, many schools are finding it cheaper to use computers in the classroom to teach and tutor students, therefore, replacing obsolete textbooks. As a college student, I can relate to understanding the expenses of buying books that will need to be replaced shortly. Online-based texts seem to be more user-friendly overall.
Aside from its feasibility, computer-based classrooms and online learning tools seem to grasp students better than traditional learning. Evident through increased attendance and graduation rates, students like incorporating technology with learning. Many feel more comfortable using a computer now than in the past.
However, as mentioned previously, I feel there is a downside to online learning. The major one: a lack of social interaction. How far does e-learning take us with real-world issues? If we are interacting with only a computer on a day-to-day basis, will we lose social skills essential for face-to-face interactions? There are just some things that cannot be taught through a computer, so I believe the key here is to use technology as a supplement, rather than a substitute.
Another cost to be considered: teaching positions not only in the U.S., but also, in other countries. If we have globally expanding e-learning institutes, is there a threat to teaching jobs? As we become more reliant on technology to offer ‘everything we need to know’, will we need real people to do the job anymore?
Overall, I feel that technology can benefit our educational institutes as a whole, but we must be careful to integrate it with our real-world learning experiences.
Technology offers many benefits for our educational institutions, but at what cost? While the majority of its impact is positive and the accounting costs are more feasible, there are economic costs to be considered.
I believe the use of technology is an overall positive thing in that it frees up time for teachers, so they may focus on specific problem areas with individuals. Also, many schools are finding it cheaper to use computers in the classroom to teach and tutor students, therefore, replacing obsolete textbooks. As a college student, I can relate to understanding the expenses of buying books that will need to be replaced shortly. Online-based texts seem to be more user-friendly overall.
Aside from its feasibility, computer-based classrooms and online learning tools seem to grasp students better than traditional learning. Evident through increased attendance and graduation rates, students like incorporating technology with learning. Many feel more comfortable using a computer now than in the past.
However, as mentioned previously, I feel there is a downside to online learning. The major one: a lack of social interaction. How far does e-learning take us with real-world issues? If we are interacting with only a computer on a day-to-day basis, will we lose social skills essential for face-to-face interactions? There are just some things that cannot be taught through a computer, so I believe the key here is to use technology as a supplement, rather than a substitute.
Another cost to be considered: teaching positions not only in the U.S., but also, in other countries. If we have globally expanding e-learning institutes, is there a threat to teaching jobs? As we become more reliant on technology to offer ‘everything we need to know’, will we need real people to do the job anymore?
Overall, I feel that technology can benefit our educational institutes as a whole, but we must be careful to integrate it with our real-world learning experiences.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)