YouTube Gaming Launches Today

youtube_gaming-860x450

One year and one day after Google lost Twitch to Amazon, YouTube is taking gaming to the public. Launched today, users can head down Youtube’s gaming site to check out the new interface, see who’s streaming, or start a stream themselves. A slick interface, huge user base, and tons of content might have Twitch worried a bit.

YouTube calls YouTube Gaming the “go-to destination for anything and everything gaming.” It not only shows who is live streaming, but serves as a collection point for all gaming content on YouTube. YouTube Gaming automatically categorizes YouTube’s gaming content and sorts it by game and by the content of video.

The new dashboard makes streaming less of a scheduled event and more of a casual thing that streamers can do whenever they want. Streaming on YouTube Gaming is done on HTML5, and, unlike Twitch, streamers can enable a “DVR Mode” that buffers the last four hours of a stream and allows viewers to rewind.

YouTube Gaming will give Twitch the biggest competition in the live streaming space it has ever seen. Almost every Twitch streamer also uses YouTube for archival purposes and as an additional revenue stream, and now YouTube is a one-stop-shop for every kind of gaming video on the Web. It will be interesting to see how the battle of the game streaming service plays out.

Sky High Wi-Fi

image

In many places around the world, Internet connectivity is an almost unheard-of luxury. Roughly 4 billion people have no access to the web. Much of India doesn’t even have functioning lavatories, public or private. Much of the Third World went straight to mobile phones and never developed a copper wire infrastructure, which makes delivering Internet at reasonable speed hard and expensive. What to do?

The answer from two of our online overlords came into closer focus this week when Facebook revealed their Internet drone and Google announced that it was working with Madagascar for that island state to be the first customer for its balloon based platform, Project Loon. In both cases, the idea is to get a platform high enough to beam a laser-based Internet signal to Earth, which can then be distributed through a network of repeating towers to remote towns and villages.

Both projects have a pretty high gee-whiz factor. The Facebook drone has the wingspan of a 737 and in theory, will be able to deliver “tens of Gigabits per second” from twice the height at which a 737 would normally fly. It’s solar powered and pretty much Star Wars awesome. The Loon is a little more pedestrian, but still way cool. Think microwave tower suspended under a Zeppelin.

In principle, all this tech applied to bring the Internet to billions of poor people is a laudable, perhaps noble idea. Communication brings people together. Having access to the world anywhere in the world no matter your status is surely a good thing? But so is clean water, childhood immunization, education for girls and women, the end to genital mutilation, universal health care and contraception…the list goes on.

Whether you like Bill Gates or not, you have to grant that he and his wife have almost single-handedly taken on some of the greatest curses of the poorest people in our world and made a huge difference. They have pretty much eliminated the horrific parasite Guinea Worm, and they are closing in on a bunch of other diseases which plague the world’s poor. They are doing this with well-managed grants; they have donated over $30 Billion so far. I have no idea how many Loons or drones you could get for $30 Billion —a few I’m guessing — but how about we eliminate Malaria first?

The sad fact is that to the narcissistic tech wonders who rule Silicon Valley, Drones and Loons are cool. Malaria, not so much. How about we do the Loons and Drones, but we donate an equal amount to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and help them give a reasonable standard of life to the future customers of those Wi-Fi services?

Search Wars: The Empire Strikes Back

Search-Wars-Logo-e1421429928227We have all been bystanders as the tech giants duke it out in various arenas. Microsoft won the battle for the desktop, Google won search, Apple won the device war, and the phone war continues. The supremacy enjoyed by Google in search has been so strong for so long that we have all stopped talking about it, except as a possible cause of anti-trust law suits. That could be changing, and the cause might well be Windows 10.

Microsoft has had the Bing search platform for a good while now, but it’s only loosely integrated with their other products. It was once terrible; now it’s pretty good. In most cases, it’s just about indistinguishable from Google, and has clawed its way to about 20% of the overall U.S. search market. However, those clever guys over in the Evil Empire of Microsoft have plans.

In the new Windows 10 version (which is officially released today), Microsoft has wrapped search around all of its components. Irrespective of what you may be looking for, whether on your PC, in your Outlook or anywhere on the web, Windows 10 will be able to give you an answer without you ever leaving the Windows environment.  Since that environment is to be found on something like 93% of all desktops, that must be a little worrying to our good friends at Google. In addition, the new Windows browser is supposed to be lightning fast. The start bar is back, their digital assistant is impressive, and all in all, what I’ve seen looks both modern and very usable.

I’ve put in for the free upgrade, and I’ll know more once I get my eager little hands on it. However, if I’m rattling around on my Windows desktop using mostly Windows programs, I might not be bothered to go open a Chrome browser just to search on Google. Of course, there will be an adoption curve. There is still a measurable number of Windows 3.1 users, but if the Windows 10 search is as good as it looks, this is going to hurt Google’s search market share, and it will once again be game on in Search Wars. I’m getting popcorn; want some?

Stalking the Google Way

image

The recent data breach at Ashley Madison (a company whose boss was dumb enough to claim that he had the most secure site on earth) means the site may end up with private information about millions of people having affairs being released online. What is perhaps much more threatening to anyone trying to stay under the radar is the spy in your pocket. Google just announced the latest version of its timeline feature in Google Maps, and it’s kind of horrifying.

For as long as you have had location services turned on (the default is off, but many people turn it on to take advantage of other cool features), Google has been tracking your every movement. For example, last Christmas, we visited Las Vegas. On my timeline for Christmas day, it shows that we stayed at Caesars and visited an exhibit at the Luxor. It’s not perfect; it shows us at the Hilton (the Purple Rain tribute show), but has the time wrong. Nonetheless, it’s pretty amazing. The fact that I didn’t ask to be tracked and didn’t know it was happening is apparently neither here nor there.

In theory, all this rather creepy. Tracking is double opt in, but I bet most people have no idea what Google has been tracking for the past five plus years. Do you know where you were in April 2009? Google does. In some cases, it even shows me moving around inside my house. Again, weirdly creepy.

Obviously (as always), all this data collection comes down to commerce. If Google knows where we are, it can better target ads of all kinds at us. Since most of us don’t make much effort to control what we share (most don’t actually care), maybe it’s just another aspect of our “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” culture. However, since Google has no problems sharing with the government pretty much anything they ask for, you have to wonder what Google and our overlords are making of the places you go and the people you see.

Fiber for Free?

Googlefibre

Google is now bringing its high-speed Internet connection, Google Fiber, to public housing scattered throughout the U.S. in order to ensure students can get online whenever they want completely for free. Google’s new initiative is part for the ConnectHome program launched by the government along with the US department of Housing and Urban Development. Google did not specify how many individual homes will be included in the new program.

As of now, Google Fiber is only available in a handful of locations including Austin, Texas; Kansas City and Provo, Utah. However, there are plans for expansion in Phoenix and Portland. As part of its plan of bringing Internet into public housing residents, Google also announced that it will offer digital literacy program for people who lack basic computer education or for those who are not familiar with the Internet. An early trial of the program was undertaken and proved that half of those who signed up for the program completed and passed the training.

Other Internet service provider has also showed their intentions of joining the project of bringing low-cost Internet to public housing. Century Link is planning to release a low-cost monthly Internet in Washington and Cox Communication is also gearing up to do the same in Louisiana.

VR Goes Hard Core

image

I’ve been touting the importance of Virtual Reality for a long time now. It is, I firmly believe, the next big thing to hit all of us. There is a growing band of hardware producers coming out with headsets of differing sophistication, the games guys are charging ahead and there have been some interesting applications emerging recently. The killer app for VR just showed up, and, as predicted, it’s porn.

The adult industry has always driven the online world. Pretty much every innovation you could come up with, from online payment to HD streaming, was brought to us in good part by porn. The latest wave is starting to break over VR, and like it or not, it’s going to be a major driver for this industry.

The poster children for this innovation are a sex toy manufacturer called Lovense and an online VR porn studio called Virtual Real Porn. Neither gets major points for naming, but the product combination is fascinating. I haven’t tried either, and likely won’t, but the story is compelling.

The Porn studio dreamed up its own tech to film convincing VR porn, and the sex toy guys came up with devices that guys (ahem) plug into which generate physical sensations that coordinate with the visuals. Supposedly, the combined impact is remarkable. Why bother? Well, traditional porn relies on the point of view of the director. You simply see what the camera sees. In a VR deployment, you are essentially watching the action and can (to some extent) move around it to catch the action at different angles. What makes VR different is the fact that it generates “presence.” It fools the mind into thinking that you are actually there. Apparently, even in this early iteration, the impact is real.

Neither of these companies is making mainstream news, but then when was the last time you heard a story about the traditional porn industry (short of condom use and HIV scares). Globally, the adult biz is worth about $100Bn annually with the US contributing about $13Bn (that’s just a touch under what the magazine industry is worth). Those are huge markets, and especially given that the customers of this industry skew heavily male (and maybe geeky?), I’d expect adoption rates to be through the roof pretty quickly.

There’s a Brit TV comedy from the late 80’s called Red Dwarf. It’s a brilliant (if patchy) SciFi spoof, and one of its more compelling story-lines involves the Better than Life VR system. Essentially, you plug it in and you can be anything you want. You can date Marilyn Monroe, climb Everest, fly to the moon; all you need is enough credits on your system.  The unexpected side effect is that people become addicted to BTL more quickly and permanently than crack cocaine, leading to societal collapse. A recent survey of young men concluded that in many cases, guys would rather play games and watch online porn than actually put the effort into forming relationships with real women. Oh, dear. This may not end well.

unnamed

Glass 2.0?

unnamed

Really? Are we still talking about Google Glass? Apparently, we are. It looks like Google is planning an extensive re-launch of what is arguably its most divisive product, this time focused on the “Enterprise Edition.”

Just in case you missed my earlier four hundred rants about this product, Google Glass is the wearable tech that evolved the term “Glassholes” to characterize its users. Nothing says, “I’m white, entitled and I know somebody with juice in Silicon Valley” like wearing Google Glass. I tried it on a couple of times, and was reasonably underwhelmed by what it could actually do. However, the substantial product shortcomings never really got a fair hearing in comparison to the avalanche of deserved contempt the “ambassadors” wearing the product generated.

Glass became totemic for everything we hate about “those people.” The harder Google pushed, the more stories emerged about boorish Glass usage. Some of the stories are doubtless urban legend but there were enough of them to lead Google to eventually pull the plug on Glass as a consumer device.

Glass’ upcoming rebirth in the technical and medical fields makes a lot of sense. In the same way a surveyor or doctor might pick up their allocated equipment for each shift, so I can readily see Glass as a useful enterprise tool. The ability to show a distant colleague exactly what’s happening on the job at that point or recall data real-time without having to manipulate a device by hand is a great idea whose time has come.

It’s unlikely that Google will sell anywhere near as many items as they would had they conquered the consumer market as planned, but the numbers they do sell will likely be more robust, have longer battery lives and boast larger, more useful screens. They will also get the public more used to eye-wearables in general. Perhaps after we have gotten used to seeing our doctors or auto mechanics wearing Glass, we will become less bothered by the application as a whole.

Apple’s iPod Touch is Getting a Facelift

ipodtouch

Apple seems to not have forgotten its roots, as recent reports suggest that the iconic computer and phone manufacturer are releasing a brand new iPod Touch. Yes, it’s been a while since the iPod has really, really meant something in the world of consumer electronics, but new models will likely be announced this week. Additionally, the company is expected to unveil new models of iPod Shuffle and the iPad Nano.

Apple’s upcoming iPod Touch will likely offer a 64-bit processor, or the same processor as the iPhone 5S. The music player with touchscreen display is also expected to include an improved back-facing camera, and additional storage option including models with 128GB non-expandable internal storage.

This round of updates in the Apple factory should not have surprised anyone. Back in June, Apple launched the revamped version of its Music App to compete with Spotify. Adding new, inexpensive iPod Touch models with new bells and whistles could help the new Apple Music rake in additional revenue from new subscribers, although the new Apple music player is also coming to Android this fall.

Some have suggested that Apple might use the new iPods to sell more Beats Music-branded headsets and earphones. The new reports about the iPod refresh also comes as Apple introduces the new build for the iOS, a beta preview, and it highlights the company’s first attempt in the online news business.

Breaking the “Capacity Limit” in Fiber Optics

With the amount of internet-connected devices increasing every day, the need for better, faster Internet is significant. University researchers have come up with a very clever solution to this problem.

Engineers at the University of California, San Diego have broken the “capacity limit” for fiber optic transmission, paving the way for faster, longer and potentially cheaper fiber networks. Currently, there is a limit on the intensity of light you can send through a fiber optic link, which arises from the fact that when you increase the intensity of light through a fiber cable, noise, distortion and signal dilution increases. This is called the optical Kerr effect, and it causes problems for fiber network designers.

Eventually the Kerr effect becomes so great that, at high intensity levels, distortion entirely prevents an outbound signal from being correctly interpreted by a receiver. The issue gets worse the longer a cable is, so to increase the transmission rate through a fiber optic link by increasing the intensity level while keeping noise at bay, you have to include signal repeaters along the way.

This new breakthrough helps increase the capacity limit of high-bandwidth fiber optic cables by conditioning signals with “frequency combs”, allowing the receiver to predict any noise that is introduced during the transmission. The ability to predict noise patterns means the receiver can reconstruct the intended data from the noisy signal. Thus, the amount of power that can be sent through a fiber optic cable can be increased significantly without worrying about the effects of noise. Researchers were able to increase the signal power in a fiber cable by 20 fold and still get data at the end.

The use of frequency combs also means data can be sent along longer cables without the need for repeaters, which has the potential to reduce the cost of fiber networks. For example, engineers were able to send data through over 7,000 miles of fiber cable with standard amplifiers and no repeaters. With this breakthrough, hopefully we can see the capacity of fiber cables increased beyond what is currently possible in real-world applications.

Google Accused… Again

unnamed

 

There are some arguments that just won’t go away. The “Google is skewing their results” argument has been kicking around for several years, and a new version has just popped up. I’ve commented multiple times on this deathly dull topic, but let’s review for old time’s sake.

Google skews its results. It’s a simple fact. They have done it for years. For example, if you use SafeSearch, it will skew away from adult content. When you make a local search, it skews results to fit your location. Nobody complains about that kind of skewing; it’s the type where they favor their own results or partners in reference to a competition that causes concern.

The FTC investigated this a year or more back in the US and found no fault. It’s unlikely to revisit this challenge, in part because it’s tricky to prove and in part because Google has a monster lobbying engine and the tech jobs issue (much like guns) is a third rail issue. The equivalent of the FTC in Europe is looking at taking on Google. Those EU guys hate Google with a passion and are always on the lookout for a stick with which to beat them.

This latest stick comes from a study commissioned and paid for by Yelp. That in of itself probably makes it worth less than the paper it’s printed on, but it’s an interesting study nonetheless. Essentially, they showed Google search presentations with and without the Google “Focus on the User Listing” OneBox container. In their testing, they found that users clicked on the plain results rather than the optimized version 45% more frequently. Their conclusion was that Google is deliberately sabotaging the end user by making the results less easy to use, forcing users to search again or…what, give up in tears? For a complaint of this kind to prosper, you have to show harm, and their version of harm here is a lower click through rate.

They aren’t claiming that a Google OneBox business being preferred is actually benefitting Google financially. Rather, by featuring OneBox registered businesses, Google is harming the end user. The overall claim is at best paper thin.

There are several quite good reasons why Google often prefers OneBox results. To start with, OneBox businesses have taken the time to validate their business, confirm the info is correct and, in many cases, create a nice business profile page that the searcher may well click through to. Either way, what does seem to be clear is if this is annoying users, it’s doing so to the extent where they are changing their search engine. Most people have bigger fish to fry.

Search and how that search is presented (much like the weather) is a big, complicated topic. If you stare hard enough, you are bound to find things that might look a bit off. Keep staring and it will change. Complaining about it to an FTC which has been bought and sold by Google won’t get you very far. I imagine these researchers will be mailing their results to the EU commissioners right away.