Tiger Woods, this week's Icarus, grew up with the Web.
Indeed, when he seemed to be flying most closely to the sun, Woods insisted that instead of talking to the police, he would only communicate through his own blog, TigerWoods.com.
News of his striking an iron fire hydrant and a wooden tree with his Cadillac Escalade was generated not by conventional media, but by Web media, principally led by TMZ.com.
While the more conventional media were still telling the story of how Woods' wife had supposedly saved him from a terrible fate, TMZ, RadarOnline, and others (the one conventional medium on TMZ's side was the more traditional Enquirer, but traditional media have always despised this under-rated institution) approached the matter with a cynic's eye, a skeptic's nose, and perhaps even a spy's technology.
Together, they produced many alleged lovers and tales of Tiger's conversations with close friends in which he allegedly confided that only a Kobe Special (the evocatively phrased "house on a ring") might remedy the situation.
And now that, according to numerous online sources, we have rumors of sexted photos of the inside of Tiger's trousers, I can think of nothing other than Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
(Credit:
Cliff 1066/Flickr)
Is it mere coincidence that on the day that Woods' most hallowed reputation was assaulted by rumors not only of smutty cell phone photos, but of an affair with a fascinating porn star, Google's CEO spoke to the world from on high?
In an interview with CNBC, Schmidt declared in what some might feel was his softest, most touchingly moralistic tone: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
His statement was meticulously constructed in response to a question about the trustworthiness of the world's most enveloping search engine. However, surely his answer applies to technology in general.
The problem with technology isn't so much that it immediately reveals, but that it immediately records. That is how Google makes much of its money, by recording the preferences of those who use it.
That is also how photographs, opinions, flings, even drunken nights come back to haunt those who may not wish nor deserve anyone's criticism.
In days gone by, sportspeople, movie stars, even, perish their memory, congressmen could keep their less socially acceptable behavior on the down low because proof was somewhat hard to clutch. Of course, people may have talked. But there was no physical evidence.
Now, the minute Playgirl decides that photographs of Tiger's private life and parts are genuine, all will be revealed in its less than salubrious glory. And Woods' interesting faith in the power of his blog to bring the unquestionable truth to those who admire him will seem like faintly naive bluster.
However, as we watch this whole sad, real, painful and even slightly amusing affair (or, as it seems, affairs) unfold upon our Macs, PCs and smartphones, shouldn't it make us wonder what it is to be free?
In order to live a life of freedom, shouldn't we fly in the other direction from Facebook, put some space between ourselves and MySpace, smash our cell phones and invest in landlines, let go of our laptops and most definitely never imagine that our personal blogs will persuade people that we are who we really think we are?
Shouldn't we attempt to live in a way that no one can observe and no one, especially Google, can record?
Tiger Woods might have gone the old media route--an interview with Diane Sawyer or Oprah. Even a Roger Clemens-like session on "60 Minutes." Perhaps one of those might have garnered him a little sympathy, might have earned him a few points in a game now largely driven by a 24-hour news cycle.
But Woods believed in new technology. And it is new technology that might end up doing him the most damage of all.
On2 Technologies has filed an update with the SEC on its proposed merger with Google, hoping to put to rest some key questions.
On2, which makes video compression software, announced Monday that the update includes certain key highlights about the merger and some frequently asked questions.
On2 agreed on August 5 to be acquired by Google for $106.5 million, a deal already approved by its board of directors. The terms call for each share of On2 to be exchanged for 60 cents worth of Google common stock.
With its board anxious for investors to approve the deal, On2 outlined some of the risks to itself and to shareholders if the acquisition is prevented. On2's merger-related expenses have already exceeded $2 million, an amount it would be responsible for if the deal is stopped, it said. With cash reserves of only $2.2 million, such a debt could certainly hurt the company.
Without Google's acquisition, On2 said it might have to grab additional financing to run its business, which could include the sale of certain assets, the issuing of debt, or the release of even more shares.
On2 also admitted that it's had trouble hiring and retaining skilled, qualified employees, a challenge that might be resolved if employees knew they'd be working for a Google instead. Otherwise, if the merger does not move forward, On2 believes its revenues would be impacted by its failure to attract or keep good employees.
To address any conflicts of interest, On2 said none of the members of its board would serve as directors, officers, or employees of Google or receive any money from Google in connection with the merger.
On2 also released an FAQ, hoping to address any concerns on the part of shareholders. Since the Google offer, the board has received no other offers or inquiries from other firms about an acquisition, the company said. The FAQ also goes into great detail about On2's board and key executives and their involvement in the merger.
On2's board has set a special meeting for December 18 for shareholders to vote on the deal, and is urging them to approve it. Proxy cards have also been sent out. If the majority of stockholders okay the merger and all other conditions are met, then it should become effective within two days after the meeting, said On2. Google has said it plans to make On2's technology part of its own Web platform.
The merger initially triggered some On2 shareholders to file lawsuits against the company in August, alleging that the deal undervalued On2 and that certain provisions prevented On2's board from considering other offers. But those suits were settled on October 26, though are currently awaiting final approval by the court.
Under terms of a memorandum of understanding in the settlement, On2 agreed to provide additional disclosures in its final proxy statement and prospectus. However, On2 said the settlement implied no wrongdoing on its part, there was no monetary damage, and the company would have released the same information in its proxy statement regardless of the lawsuits.
On August 1, 1981, a cultural and entertainment juggernaut flickered onto TV screens and rocketed out of obscurity with these six words: "Ladies and gentlemen, rock and roll."
With that, the iconic cable network, MTV, was launched and a popular entertainment category--music videos--was born. Now, 28 years later, MTV has largely abandoned the genre and the record industry is preparing for the debut of a possible successor.
On Tuesday, video start-up Vevo is scheduled to launch. Supported by three of the top four largest record companies (sources say EMI has agreed to provide content to the site) and backed by the technological muscle of YouTube, Vevo is a Web site that will feature videos from many of the world's biggest recording stars, including U2, Cold Play, the Black Eyed Peas, Lady Gaga, Avril Lavigne, Bruce Springsteen, and Pearl Jam, according to the site's backers.
The move comes three years after Google's YouTube began proving that the masses still love music videos. Professionally made music clips are by far the most popular fare on the Web's No. 1 video site, accounting for 14 of the 25 most viewed clips ever. The labels involved with Vevo boast a combined total of about 15 billion views on YouTube.
Much of the music industry, including a score of independent labels that have recently signed on to the project, think it's time for music videos to take the next step in their evolution. They want a standalone site packed with high-definition clips from marquee acts.
Don't look for any user-generated content on Vevo, according to Doug Morris, chairman and CEO of Universal Music Group, the man who came up with the idea for the service. He said he wants to offer music fans as well as advertisers a more polished digital stage. That's one of the main reasons the venture was built, to charge advertisers premium rates in exchange for premium content.
Another motivation for building the site was to give the music industry a greater say in what happened to its content.
In an interview with CNET last week, Morris made no bones about the fact that by launching Vevo, the music industry is serving notice: no longer will middlemen or third parties profit from the labels' video content without giving up a fair share.
"What we're really doing is taking back control of everything," said Morris, who operates the largest of the top four recording companies. "This is us taking control of our future...Vevo enables us to provide consumers with about 80 percent of all the music videos in the world. So, this is really like MTV on steroids. We're starting with that kind of audience. But now we're in control of it. We don't have to go through a middleman anymore."
The problem as defined by the music sector started with MTV and extends all the way to YouTube.
When MTV was created, everyone told the labels not to worry about getting paid because the cable channel helped promote artists. "It was good exposure," they were told. The experts said the same thing in 2006 when YouTube started to emerge as one of the Web's favorite music sources. For a long time, the record companies seemed happy to go along, even as MTV built a financial empire from the videos.
But this time around, the music industry can't afford not to be the one who cashes in. The rest of the business is in decline, as CD sales shrink and profit margins on downloads are sliver thin. Record execs have been criticized for not finding new revenue models, so that's what they are trying to do. They believe there's new money to be had from the videos, even as they readily acknowledge that getting to it hasn't always been easy.
Morris remembers seeing a video from a Universal artist posted to Yahoo a couple of years ago and asking one of his employees what the portal paid for it. The exec told Morris the video was considered promotional and Yahoo paid nothing.
Promoting what? The video was five years old and Yahoo was pocketing the ad money without sharing it with the creators, Morris recalled telling the employee.
"I then called up (former Yahoo CEO) Terry Semel," Morris said. "And I said, 'Terry, we want to be paid.' Semel replied 'Absolutely not.' Then, we took our videos down from Yahoo and AOL and their viewership declined, at which point they came back and they paid us. They paid us a percentage of a cent for each view."
Morris isn't implying that Vevo's music clips will no longer be used to promote music or that Vevo plans to charge to watch videos. No, they will still be offered to viewers free of charge.
What is changing is that music videos, which often cost tens of thousands of dollars to produce, won't be treated as loss leaders anymore--not in this economic environment.
Nonetheless, Vevo faces plenty of challenges.
Nobody has proven whether advertisers are willing to pay top dollar for online videos, even professionally made music videos. There's also the question about whether interest in the genre will wane just as did with previous generations of music fans. After all, MTV switched to reality shows for a reason, no?
Rio Caraeff, Vevo's CEO, says the music video is only one of the site's features. The obligatory playlists will be available but music lyrics will also be offered. Visitors will have more access to their favorite performers than ever and Vevo's video quality will be as much as three times as what is typically available online.
All these upgrades were absolutely necessary to draw the kind of top advertising dollar that label honchos seek, according to Caraeff. He said typical ad rates for Web video run somewhere between $3 and $8 for every thousand views. Vevo's mission is to attract rates of $25 to $40.
"Successful was how we felt about YouTube, in terms of the shear popularity of our programming," Caraeff said. "But what we felt was that there could be a better way to drive a business around it. Advertisers had some reticence and some reluctance to fully embrace music videos on YouTube. We felt that there was work to be done to restore the premium luster and really create a better experience for advertisers."
In the short run, look for Vevo to be an online music store where downloads are sold as well as the merchandise created by artists, such as clothes and perfumes. In the long run, a music-video subscription service could be rolled out, one that offers full-length concerts.
"I do believe we will have a subscription service where we will stream live concerts from all over the country to viewers for a monthly fee," Morris said. "This is futuristic. We have not built this yet, but we're working on it."
Google is making a new move to lower language barriers, offering the ability to translate search results from one language to another.
The search giant is in the process of adding the feature to the "show options" button that shows at the top of search results page. "We've offered this feature in Google Translate for a while, but now we're integrating it fully into Google search, making it easier for you to find and read results from pages across the web, even if they weren't written in a language you speak," said Maureen Heymans, the project's technical leader, and Jeff Chin, its product manager, in a blog post.
Clicking the option can dramatically change the results you see. For example, my ordinary search for "Taipei Museum of Fine Art" produced mostly English-language results. The translated results, though, featured Chinese Web sites with a different perspective (see the result below). Among other things, there was a Chinese Wikipedia entry--also conveniently translated by Google when I clicked the link--where there is none written in English.
... Read moreThe world's second-largest PC maker has designs on being the first to offer a Chrome OS Netbook.
Acer Chairman J.T. Wang said in an interview with Digitimes that he's "confident" his company will be first out of the gate with Google's open-source operating system pre-installed.
Chrome OS will be coming to Netbooks next year. Acer says it will be first.
(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET)The earliest it would be available is mid-2010, according to Digitimes' unnamed sources.
Acer was just one of several hardware makers previously announced to be working with Google on implementing Chrome OS, along with Asus, Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo, and Toshiba. Dell, which hasn't committed to it fully yet, has released an experimental version of Chrome OS based on the source code that will work on the Dell Mini 10v Netbook, though it's not an official product.
Though Wang didn't offer details or specifications for Acer's Chrome OS Netbook, the guys behind Chrome OS have already let on what they're expecting.
At the OS's first public demonstration last month, Google said its vision includes slightly larger keyboards and screens than what's currently available, x86 or ARM processors, solid-state drives, and 802.11(n) Wi-Fi chips.
Following modifications to its "First Click Free" policy that gives Google News users access to some content that would otherwise be behind a pay wall, Google has released an additional tweak that lets publishers decide whether they want their sites to show up in Google News, Google Web search, both, or neither.
Previously, if a publisher wanted to request inclusion in one or the other, but not both, sending a request to Google was required. This now automates the process.
These updates to Google's news indexing come at a time when media outlets are once again pointing fingers at the search giant as a revenue suck--and in response, Google insists it's good for publishers because it drives traffic. News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch has made concrete threats that he will pull his publications' content from Google and is reported to be in talks with Microsoft to strike an exclusive deal on its Bing search engine.
By offering more flexible options for choosing where exactly news outlets want their content to appear, Google comes across as friendlier and less authoritative--at least on the surface.
Some, perhaps including Rupert Murdoch, might find this story uplifting.
While there has been much recent bellowing, whining, and general cat-on-heat griping about Google making money from the fine work of others, now I can report that some are finding ways to make money piggybacking on the broad spine of Google's engineering.
Two enterprising entities, different in their form but united in their purpose, have attempted to use Google's Street View as a medium for their own commercial messages.
First, there was car rental company AutoShare, the Canadian equivalent Zipcar in the U.S. You know, the folks who are always reserving spots in your favorite parking lot. Well, AutoShare thought it would be fun to ask its customers to look out for its cars on Street View and offer a limited number of them prizes for their vision.
(Credit:
AutoShare)
The prize wasn't much: 100 strong Canadian dollars. But with some astute ad targeting in locations such as Facebook and Google, their "In-The-Wild" promotion seems to have entertained the world-weary citizens of Toronto.
Indeed, the AutoShare Twitter page shows that people got rather excited about looking for AutoShare's 200 cars on Google's public-spirited cameras.
This enterprising thought process was, perhaps, topped by Editors. Editors is an indie band (don't most bands have to be indie these days?) from the British town of Birmingham, where the people who claim to be my parents say I was born.
To launch their latest album, Editors used a little Flash trickery to hack into Street View, London version, and create their own custom locations where people could enjoy some of their really very fine music and even see some of the band's fans. (Video embedded)
Editors were rather clever in choosing locations that were not normally accessible on Street View.
Recently, I wrote about IKEA's wonderful use of Facebook to launch a store in Malmo, Sweden. And I know some people thought one should point out that this use was not entirely in accordance with Facebook's promotional guidelines.
However, when companies decide that on occasion they'd prefer to use information you thought might be private for commercial gain, when companies ask you to opt out (if they ask you at all) rather than opt in, there are those who might feel that some enterprising uses of, say, Facebook and Google Street View, should be classified as pioneering.
Great commerce, just like great art, sometimes breaks a couple of rules, doesn't it? In fact, Murdoch has done it quite brilliantly on occasion.
The death of Michael Jackson in June launched a frenzy of Web activity and propelled the late pop star to the top of the search charts for 2009.
That's the word from Google, Yahoo, and Bing, all of which have revealed their popular search terms for the past year.
It's not too shocking to see Jackson leading the searches for the year. Following the pop star's death in June, Akamai found that worldwide Web traffic had surged 11 percent over normal levels. Even Google--which in the initial going thought the Jackson-related traffic was an attack of some sort--was briefly sent staggering.
Searches for Michael Jackson songs spiked in late June when news broke about the pop star's death.
(Credit: Google)According to Google's Zeitgeist findings, "Michael Jackson" was the "fastest rising" worldwide search term of 2009. In the U.S., "Michael Jackson" placed second behind "Twitter." Marissa Mayer, Google's vice president of search products and user experience, in a blog post also pointed to an up-and-coming music sensation:
As millions of fans said goodbye to the King of Pop, Michael Jackson led the list of our top 10 fastest rising queries across the globe. And a new star was born, too--quirky pop singer Lady Gaga became a search sensation the world over. In addition to appearing on many regional fastest-rising search term lists, from the Czech Republic to Switzerland and Kenya to the United Kingdom, Lady Gaga also landed in the #9 spot on the global fastest rising list.
On the social side, Google monitored whose Twitter accounts were the most searched for. According to the company, Miley Cyrus' Twitter account was the most sought after, followed by those of Lance Armstrong and Taylor Swift. Khloe Kardashian's marriage to basketball player Lamar Odom was the most-Googled wedding of the year.
"Michael Jackson" was the top Yahoo search term for the year. He was followed by a who's who (and a what's what) of the U.S. entertainment scene. "Twilight" was the second most-popular search term, followed by wrestling organization "WWE," starlet "Megan Fox," singer "Britney Spears," and manga series "Naruto." Filling out the top 10 were "American Idol," "Kim Kardashian," "Nascar," and "Runescape."
Microsoft's Bing, which debuted in late May, had similar results. Once again, "Michael Jackson" was the top "trending topic," followed by "Twitter" and "swine flu." "Stock market" and "Farrah Fawcett" rounded out Bing's top five.
Of course, 2009 was also marked by continued concern over the state of the economy. According to Yahoo, "coupons," "unemployment," and "stimulus plan" were the most-numerous queries related to the economy. By contrast, Google's most-searched economy-related terms were "crisis," "cash for clunkers," and "Iceland."
Google also followed queries related to celebrity deaths in 2009. Users searched for "Michael Jackson" the most, followed by "Billy Mays" and "Steve McNair." Yahoo's data revealed that Michael Jackson's death was the most-searched term, but unlike Google's data, the pop star was followed by "Farrah Fawcett" and "Patrick Swayze."
See also:
• Google Zeitgeist 2009
• Yahoo Year in Review 2009
• Top Bing searches in 2009
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
YouTube, which is already trying out the movie rental business, wants to get into TV, too.
Google's video site has been trying to convince the TV industry to let it stream individual shows for a fee, multiple sources tell me.
YouTube already lets users watch a smattering of TV shows for free, with advertising. Now it envisions something similar to what Apple and Amazon already offer: First-run shows, without commercials, for $1.99 an episode, available the day after they air on broadcast or cable.
Sources say the site's negotiations with the networks and studios that own the shows are preliminary. But both sides seem optimistic, since models for such deals already exist. No comment from YouTube.
The biggest stumbling block may be consumers. That's because Google is talking about streaming the shows, instead of letting consumers download them to their computers, as both Apple and Amazon do. But the networks and studios, who control pricing, will want to sell the streamed shows at the same price as downloads--they fear that offering them at a different price will force them to go back and rework their existing deals.
Executives at YouTube and TV insist that the disparity is simply a perception problem, and cite studies that show that most people who download TV episodes only watch them once, anyway. But that's a tough sell.
It's also possible that YouTube may skirt the issue by launching a TV rental business without the big hits that Apple and Amazon offer. One possibility: It could start by moving immediately to long and mid-"tail" shows and videos that aren't available other places, and don't have to match existing prices.
No matter how it does it, YouTube is likely to be just one of several outlets trying to get consumers to pay for TV on the Web in 2010.
Among others: In addition to its a la carte offering, Apple is trying to create a monthly subscription service. Hulu, the free TV site co-owned by News Corp.'s Fox, GE's NBC Universal and Disney's ABC, is expected to launch a subscription service of its own. And cable operators like Comcast will be launching different versions of "TV Everywhere" services, which give subscribers expanded access to online shows.
TV executives are generally enthusiastic about all of the above, since they are meant to create additional revenue streams without threatening the industry's existing business. That is: They're supposed to protect it from the digital disruption that has ravaged music, newspapers, etc.
But while Web users have an insatiable appetite for video, they've yet to demonstrate much interest in paying for it. If any of this is going to work, that will have to change.
Story Copyright (c) 2009 AllThingsD. All rights reserved.
Additional stories from AllThingsD
Google wants to know more about how TiVo owners are exposed to commercials.
(Credit: TiVo)
Google and TiVo know you accidentally watch a few ads while fast-forwarding through the commercial breaks of your recorded programs, and they'd like a little more data to back that up.
Google plans to add TiVo "television viewing data" to its existing Google TV Ads program, the two companies said in a press release Tuesday. Google TV Ads is the company's attempt to re-create its AdWords and AdSense model on the small screen through a partnership with Dish Network, and it wants to use TiVo data to help its advertising clients measure how and when their ads are viewed.
DVRs like TiVo are not the favorite tech product of the television advertising business, as they allow viewers to watch shows whenever they like and skip the commercials. But most DVR owners (except for a few masters of the remote control) catch glimpses of ads as they whiz by, or overshoot the end of the commercial period and hit the 30-second rewind button, exposing them to the last ad shown before the program resumes.
That kind of viewing shouldn't count as a full ad impression, since the advertiser knows the viewer didn't watch the full ad, but Google seems to feel that it can't be completely ignored, either. It plans to use "anonymous second-by-second DVR viewing data" to track how viewers see ads placed through Google TV Ads. It also gives Google more access to viewer behavior on sources outside of Dish Network, including cable, satellite, and over-the-air viewers.
That could presumably make Google TV Ads more attractive to potential advertisers, since Google will be able to assemble a wealth of data on the viewing habits of DVR owners. Google also has a deal with Nielsen for viewing data, although some feel the new TiVo partnership will put a lot of strain on that relationship.
In a somewhat related move, TiVo has also partnered with MillerCoors to expose football fans to Coors Light ads when they are fast-forwarding through recorded NFL games.
