Archive for the ‘Tech’ Category

TinyChat Eyes Live Video Broadcasters With TinyChat.tv

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

The live video service TinyChat is best known for its ability to sync together up to 16 broadcasters in the same room, but it has also been adding new services and functionality to its line-up. Recently, it launched a dead-simple video chat service reminiscent of Skype.

Now TinyChat’s decided to use its live video technology to directly compete with live video powerhouses Ustream (ustream) and Justin.tv. The company has just launched TinyChat.tv, a service for making “your own live web show.”

It has all of the basic necessities to start a live video T.V. show: customization options, scheduling, subscriptions, and promotion via Facebook (Facebook) or Twitter (Twitter). Since it’s TinyChat (TinyChat), you can have multiple simultaneous video broadcasters in your show, the service’s big advantage. It also has live chat and commenting. If you want to start a simple live show, TinyChat.tv is definitely a usable option.

We’ll be honest though: it’s nowhere near ready to compete with Justin.tv or Ustream. Getting a live stream up and running is a long-winded process, as opposed to the main TinyChat service, which is as simple as typing random characters after “Tinychat.com.” It took 6-7 screens of settings and customization before we could get broadcasting, which was annoying.

Competing against Ustream and Justin.tv isn’t as simple as putting up a live video TV service. Both of them has perfected some powerful technology and attracted thousands of loyal users and broadcasters. From our tests, we doubt TinyChat.tv could handle the load that these other services endure — for example, there were over 500,000+ simultaneous viewers for a recent Carrie Underwood concert on Ustream.

In summary, TinyChat.tv is good, useful, and has features that other live video services don’t have. It’s an impressive display of their API (which is free), but there’s more to live video broadcasting than just the technology you use. It’s early though, so we expect the service to grow and improve as time goes on. If you try it out for yourself, let us know what you think of TinyChat.tv in the comments.

Disclosure: Mashable (Mashable) has partnered with TinyChat to create The Mashable Lounge, our live Twitter chatroom.

Bing and News Corp take on Google?

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

Rupert Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google’s head, and Microsoft is helping him pull back the trigger. For the past few weeks, Murdoch and his officers at News Corp. have been very vocal about their distaste for Google and their desire to lead other media companies in a boycott of sorts.

Murdoch keeps threatening to stop letting Google index the WSJ.com and his other media sites, and wants other news sites to join him in this self-imposed silence. The folks at Microsoft’s Bing think this is a great idea. Not only that, but the FT reports that Microsoft is in fact in discussions with News Corp. and other publishers about the possibility of paying them to remove their sites from Google’s search index. This report comes on the heels of a meeting in Europe where Bing dangled the prospect of premium spots in search results to publishers and outright money for search R&D.

Microsoft is not afraid to buy search market share, which is what it’s doing with the Yahoo search deal and even its Cashback program. But with these latest talks, it is literally trying to buy the news, or at least exclusive access to the news.

Bing can’t buy all the news, it can only buy certain brands. If Bing can somehow become the only place you can find news results and working links to the Wall Street Journal and other top papers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the LA Times, for instance, that would be a big reason to switch for a lot of folks. But it’s not clear how much Bing would have to pay the news companies of the world for them to give up all the traffic Google sends them in return for a fraction of that traffic and some cash.

Even Google couldn’t afford to strike such deals. Says Murdoch, of Google, “If they were to pay everybody for everything they took from every newspaper in the world, and every magazine, they wouldn’t have any profits left.”

In order to actually make a dent in Google’s market share, Bing would have to pay such exorbitant sums to so many different news companies that it would be difficult to recoup its investment. Bing certainly get some marketing buzz out of any such move, but that’s about it.

The big problem with a search engine trying to buy market share by buying parts of the news is that information spreads so quickly these days, exclusives last about 30 seconds. That information will end up on a site that is indexed by Google. Or the same news will be broken by someone else on the Web before the WSJ.com even gets to it.

Exclusive indexing goes against the Web’s inherent openness. Companies that try to curtail that openness don’t last long on the Web.

Free HULU is over

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

Hulu's Free Glory Days Are Officially Numbered

Hulu, at the behest of its co-parent News Corp, is going to start charging for content in 2010. This is not so good, this here news.

Here's the money quote from NewsCorpian Chase Carey, so there's no confusion:

It's time to start getting paid for broadcast content online. I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value. Hulu concurs with that, it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business

An optimist might interpret this as a move toward tiered access, or even the decidedly good addition of paid premium content, like HBO and Showtime. But read carefully:

It's time to start getting paid for broadcast content online

It doesn't get any less premium than broadcast content, which is exactly what Carey says we'll soon be paying for—sometime in 2010, he supposes. (Though to be fair, there's a scrap of reassurance later in the same article: “not all content on Hulu would be behind a pay wall.” Cool?) This is extra-extra-foreboding next to last week's statements about a paid Hulu from Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes, highlighted by TVBizwire: “That's not an if,” he said “that's a when.” It was fun while it lasted, I guess.

On a totally unrelated note, here are some neat articles, for pleasure reading! [Broadcasting Cable via TVBizwire]

Send an email to John Herrman, the author of this post, at jherrman@gizmodo.com.

The Kindle on users computer is going to soon be a reality

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009
Kindle for PC. I Bet You Look Good On a Touchscreen
  • <!– var fbShare =
    url: 'http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/10/22/kindle-for-pc-i-bet-that-you-look-good-on-a-touchscreen/',
    size: 'small',
    awesm_api_key: 'edfc207d929b8ae0d024b6c647946188450f042727c838dda8f2d1b2227e4734',
    title: 'Kindle for PC. I Bet You Look Good On a Touchscreen'
    –> <!– –>
by John Biggs on October 22, 2009

kindle-for-pc-tcg-coming-soon._V229480704_

Amazon has just made their new Kindle for PC available for pre-order online, a move that turns almost any PC in the entire world into a fully-fledged ereader. The software comes on the heels of all of the big Win7 announcements today evens up the playing fields when it comes to PC-based ereaders.

Amazon has long had the Kindle but Barnes & Noble launched a PC ereader long before Amazon, putting them at a disadvantage. B&N also has versions of their reader for OS X, BlackBerry smartphones, and the iPhone/Touch.

Kindle for PC Demo on Windows 7

The actual Amazon PC version isn’t quite available – it’s still coming soon – but it’s currently floating around in Beta. Unfortunately there is no planned Mac version either, something that B&N already has. Interestingly, Michael noted the value of “opening up” the Kindle service to multiple devices back in August 2008 and it seems that they’re clearly seeing ways into new markets untouched by the current ereader craze.

The B&N’s PC/Mac/iPhone e-reader is here.

I also have this song in my head:

.cbw padding: 1px; border: 1px solid #b6b6b6; margin: .6em 0 .6em 0 !important; clear: both; .cbw a color: #3F87BB !important; border: 0 !important; text-decoration: none !important; .cbw a:hover color: #165d91 !important; border: 0 !important; text-decoration: none !important; .cbw_header font-size: .9em; font-weight: bold; position: relative; .cbw_header_text background: #f4f4f4 !important; padding: 1em 1em 1em 1em !important; .cbw_header_toggle display: block; position: absolute; top: 1em; right: 1em; _right: 3.5em; font-weight: bold; cursor: pointer; .cbw_header_get display: block; position: absolute; top: 1em; right: 7em; _right: 9.5em; font-weight: bold; cursor: pointer; .cbw_subheader padding: .7em .7em .5em .7em !important; border: 0 !important; margin: 0 !important; font-size: 1.2em !important; background: #f4f4f4 !important; font-weight: bold; .cbw_subcontent font-size: 0.95em; line-height: 1.2em !important; margin: .15em 0 .15em 0 !important; padding: .7em !important; background: white !important; border-top: 2px solid #f4f4f4 !important; border-bottom: 2px solid #f9f9f9 !important; overflow: hidden; height: auto; .cbw_subcontent p margin: .45em .15em .45em .15em !important; padding: 0 !important; .cbw_subcontent_left float: right !important; margin: 0 0 .5em .5em !important; .cbw img max-width: 150px !important; max-height: 150px !important; border: 0 !important; padding: 0 !important; .cbw img:hover, .cbw_subcontent_left a:hover border: 0 !important; .cbw_subcontent_right .cbw_subcontent table width: auto !important; .cbw_subcontent td padding: .15em !important; vertical-align: top !important; .cbw_subcontent .td_left width: 40px !important; font-weight: bold !important; .cbw_footer padding: .8em !important; font-size: .9em !important; text-align: right !important; background: #f9f9f9 !important; .cbw_footer a font-weight: bold; .cbw_header_text display: none; geAmazon