Editor’s note: The following guest post was written by Ashkan Karbasfrooshan, founder and CEO of WatchMojo. The rise and proliferation of cable grew the total pie for television, leaving networks with bigger businesses even if their share of the pie shrunk. While the network-to-cable shift was evolutionary, the television-to-web transition is revolutionary. Nonetheless, TV’s Traditional Media Companies (TMCs) are betting that the Web is just another distribution outlet that adds reach and potential revenue to their assets and will grow their business when the dust settles. Whether or not that strategy pays off remains to be seen.  After all, the Web made the music business a more efficient one, but the industry shrank in terms of revenues and profits. In any case, while the TMCs have flirted with made-for-web programming (what I call “Premium content”), they have always gravitated back to made-for-television and theatrical content (what I call “Super premium content”). For example, Viacom invested in Vice’s VBS.tv back in 2007, but since then they have co-invested in EPIX along with MGM and Lionsgate. Lionsgate itself invested $21.4 million in Break Media for 42% with an option to buy the rest for $58 million. If online video was as amazing as the boosters say, wouldn’t Lionsgate had already exercised its option? Break Media has actually executed quite well and carved a nice niche for itself in the men’s online video category, but for TMCs, the numbers are immaterial. An Opportunity in Video Content for Startups Who Understand the Fabric of the Web Indeed, the vast majority of premium content has been created by new media startups. The mistake some of these have made has been to build a Traditonal Media Company on top of the Internet, something that is sheer lunacy and a recipe for shattered egos and wasted millions. Ripe Entertainment burned through $40 million and was backed by both VCs (Rho Ventures and Columbia Capital) and TMCs (Hearst Television and Time Warner). Raising $25-50M to build a content business online is a bad strategy, whereby the better you “execute” the worst off you will be. In fact, while this revolutionary shift represents an opportunity for some startups, anyone who is surprised by the TMCs’ reluctance to focus on premium content is either being delusional or disingenuous: there is absolutely zero economic incentive or rationale for TMCs to experiment, let alone invest heavily, in premium content. Admittedly, this is an Innovator’s Dilemma at its best, but it’s one thing to question TMCs for hesitating to put their offline programming online to chase pennies, it’s another to actually wonder why they don’t invest in made-for-web programming that has zero existing franchise and traction. Why bother? Way to Encourage Them, Guys Of all of the companies that have received funding or invested in premium content, only a few have had exits: LX.tv was acquired by NBC Universal and now serves as their content creation arm for taxis and local affiliates in NY and LA; Wallstrip was bought by CBS and essentially shut down. Mind you, CBS had no business buying Wallstrip (TheStreet would have been a far better suitor). It shuttered it when the 2008-09 econocalypse hit, ironic, since a cynical take on Wall Street would have been very appropriate at that time; Google bought Next New Networks and folded it in its YouTube division to ensure that Googlers didn’t have to deal with humans, and the NNN brass could manage the oddballs who make a living on YouTube and represent the site’s best bet to offer advertisers a modicum of brand-safe content (good luck with that). Meanwhile, HBO unloaded its “new media” HBOLabs/RunawayBox unit to Break, Comcast axed NBC Universal Digital Studio recently, News Corp. has been dabbling in new media content but it has bigger issues now. Mind you, slowly but surely, you are seeing some interesting activity: Mark Cuban (so HDNet indirectly) invested in Revision3. Hmm … ok, maybe there will be more activity … but don’t hold your breath. A few years ago, I contacted Bertelsmann to talk about a partnership to help my company, WatchMojo, expand in Europe. We’d begun translating our English videos into Spanish, French and German and Bertelsmann seemed like a great potential partner. They told me plainly that their focus was how to monetize the thousands of hours of media they had in their archive, and not create new content to monetize online. TV-Envy Killed the Internet Star The common refrain seems to be “television is a $70 billion market, online video is only a $1.5 billion market, when will online video get its fair share”? Um, how about never? Technically, if you include all revenue, television is actually a $250 billion industry in the US. That is a lot of money and the TMCs know that. Online video isn’t growing fast enough because: There’s not that much good content tempting advertisers, and Google’s YouTube has a near monopoly on video distribution when it comes to aggregate scale. The result is that TMCs lack the economic incentive to invest online since 40% of online advertising’s rapidly growing pie goes to search, and only $1.5 billion will be spent on online video advertising in the U.S. Balance sheet vs. Income statement Lost in the “will Hulu sell?” talk is “why would the owners want to sell?” Hulu raised $100 million at a $1 billion valuation. Even if Hulu’s value has risen since that deal, the increased value on the TMCs’ balance sheets means little. However, if Hulu (in the hands of someone else, be it as an independent post-IPO company, or in the hands of MSFT/YHOO/GOOG) pays the TMCs hundreds of millions of dollars per year in licensing fees, then that kind of annuity on their income statement will be far more valuable. This is why suddenly Netflix has become not just a frenemy but a dear pal to the TMCs, because Netflix can sign big checks each year to the TMCs (lending further credence to the fact that content and distribution are equally important and one without the other is worthless). To conclude: Yes, there is an opportunity for new media startups to create lean, efficient, content creating machines online, especially with web video set to overtake live broadcast TV by 2020 in terms of time spent watching. But, thinking that TMCs should follow suit is lunacy. They are better off thinking up ways to monetize their traditional assets, even if that means repackaging some/all of it for snack-size consumption among online audiences. Over time, the distribution platforms will converge, but control of the content will become a bigger issue than ever. The solution to their problem isn’t “more content.”

Summer is already here… Wear your iPhones these colorful slippers so as to let them live a cool season as you do. Selling Price: $10 Buy it here

Rupert Murdoch's iPad-based news vehicle is based on a model that isn't likely to sell - or to interest Murdoch for very long

My take on email etiquette. View

Mozilla has released the newest version of the Firefox 4 Beta, which not only includes hundreds of bug fixes, but also adds long-awaited multi-touch functionality to the browser.Firefox 4 Beta Version 3 comes with three main updates from its predecessor. First, it addresses several hundred bugs and exploits. Second, it includes a JavaScript update that allows Firefox to execute graphics and animations (heavy in numeric code) with more efficiency. Finally, it allows web authors to monitor and accept touch events (aka, it enables multi-touch functionality).It’s not as if Firefox 4 magically turns your monitor into a touchscreen, though. This is just the addition of support for multi-touch functionality; it’s up to developers and web companies to implement touch events on their websites. It’s also only available for Windows 7 for now; sorry Mac users.Despite these restrictions, there’s a lot to be excited about when it comes to multi-touch in Firefox 4. Firefox’s Felipe Gomes and Paul Rouget have produced some videos that demonstrate just what you can do with the new multi-touch API:As more monitors support multi-touch and more web pages implement the functionality on their own webpages, we can see this feature gaining traction. Let us know what you think of multi-touch in Firefox 4 in the comments.Reviews: Firefox, WindowsMore About: Firefox, Firefox 4, Firefox 4.0, Firefox beta, mozilla, multitouch, web browsers, Windows 7For more Tech coverage:Follow Mashable Tech on TwitterBecome a Fan on FacebookSubscribe to the Tech channelDownload our free apps for iPhone and iPad

In the new media reality, the message must transcend the media. Media is changing at such a frenetic pace that even the most jaded veterans of the industry are uncertain about what it all means.  We’re told the old days are gone, but it’s still not clear what the future will bring. It seems that as soon as the next “big thing” comes along, a bigger one arrives to take its place.  All of the dissonance and chatter is extremely confusing and that makes it hard to plot strategy going forward. However, hidden in the commotion, there are some principles that are constant and they can help guide our way. The Difference Between the Internet and The Web Although the two terms are often used as synonyms, there is a substantive difference between the Internet and the Web, both historically and functionally. The Internet is essentially hardware – a patchwork of fiber, frequencies and protocols that link together the world’s computers. It began with the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the US Military (ARPA) in the 1960’s.  This ARPANET, eventually evolved into the Internet which merged with the PC revolution to create a sensation. The web, on the other hand, is fairly simple comparatively.  It began in 1990 with three protocols developed by one man, Tim Berners-Lee.  It consisted of an address system (URL) some basic rules for communicating over the internet (HTTP) and a language that allowed documents to be presented by different computers with different systems (HTML). There are some details I’m leaving out, but basically that’s it.  The basic story is that the Internet transmits information and the Web allows us to see content (for more detail, see The Semantic Web). Gardens with Flimsy Walls While the Internet changed communication, it was the Web that transformed media.  It was designed to allow you to see the same information in the same way no matter what equipment you bought.  The link between content and distribution was severed and that changed everything. Previously, a broadcast license was essentially a license to print money.  A newspaper’s network of distributors was highly determinant of what opinions could be expressed in a certain geographical area.  Media sought to “own eyeballs” with a proprietary offering and were locked in a never-ending battle with others competing to do the same thing. Early digital media players like AOL took the same approach and combined internet access with informational, content and e-commerce services.  However, they were soon surpassed by better technology on the distribution side and stronger content on the media side. (A similar metamorphosis from vertical to horizontal organization occurred in the computer hardware industry.) The New Reality Walled Gardens and vertical integration are gone and they aren’t coming back in any significant way.  This realization has brought about a new era and perceived optimal strategies have changed dramatically. In the past, dominant companies such as IBM, Microsoft and AOL flouted their dominance.  First mover advantage and enormous scale was seen as crucial to projecting an image of not only viability, but inevitability.  Greed was good because only the positive externalities brought by network effects could guarantee survival. However, since the primal forces that drive networks that were discovered in the late 90’s have become better understood, a remarkable change in outlook has emerged.  The new dominators, Google and Apple, flout their openness.  Even the famously competitive Steve Jobs finds it necessary to assert his commitment to open web standards. Whether there has been an actual change in practice is a matter of some debate, but the change in tone is unmistakable.  Media now become successful by encouraging links rather than building walls. Dual Revolutions Mean Dual Strategies Media companies today must address not one challenge, but two: the communications revolution brought about by the Internet and the media transformation that the web continues to drive. Security and Sharing: As the saying goes, good fences make good neighbors.  The fact that the Internet has connected all of our machines together has created a security nightmare.  Databases which contain proprietary information are inextricably tied to devices that are both cheap and ubiquitous. Moreover, as I’ve written before, current methods of encryption are becoming less and less tenable.  It’s quite possible that what is considered unbreakable today will be broken routinelywithin a decade. Conversely, the web is designed for sharing.  It contains no data nor computer programs and therefore cannot be hacked or crash.  It merely allows content to be presented so that everybody can see it, no matter what system they have. And if people can share, they will. Most media sites have less than 50% of their audience come through their home page.  This turns traditional media thinking on its head.  Audience can’t be owned, only rented for a short while. Brands and Appliances: Marshal McLuhan famously said that “the media is the message.”  Media were split into hot and cold, engaged some senses and not others.  TV screens were of a certain size, newspapers and magazines were printed on paper with a specific quality. The new reality is that all content is an endless string of ones and zeros that are transmitted through fiber optic cable and radio frequencies to consumers who can view it on a variety of appliances in a multitude of contexts and settings. Brands, however, must maintain some consistency.  As I’ve said before, successful brands are ones that make important promises and keep them.  In the new media reality, the message must transcend the media. Events, continuums , mashups and slices: We used to consume media as events.  Newspapers came out in the mornings and had certain headlines, TV shows kept their schedules and radio programming was dominated by the clock.  Today’s news wrapped tomorrow’s fish.  Media buyers “dayparted” to find the right audience. Modern media is stored in databases, ready to be pulled onto the pixels of our various screens of different sizes and fidelities at a moment’s notice.  Broadcasts are recorded by consumers digitally, to be shared and viewed at another time and even another place. Moreover, media is increasingly used for purposes the consumer dreams up, with little input from the creator.  Media are sliced into ringtones and combined into mashups, then stored in new databases, transmitted through the Internet and displayed on the Web.  They become memes, mutating and spreading even as they continue to refer back to the original organism. The Media Mission The points above only tell part of the story.  The full truth is actually much more complex and fraught with danger.  Moreover, we’re just getting started, with lots of curves in the road still to come. However, the solution is as simple as it is timeless.  The core media mission – to inform, entertain and inspire – has not changed. Content, in whatever form, is still king.  The real difference is that the relationship between speakers and listeners has become more genuine, with less intermediation. So the future of media lies not in complexity, but simplicity.  While we must master the details of new technologies we must not lose sight of the timeless truths of human interaction.  It is hopes and dreams that motivate people, not bits and bytes. Even a global village is still just a village. -          Greg                            Related posts:How Magazine Publishers Can Transform Themselves into Digital Giants Sorry, Rupert Murdoch…Content Will Remain Free. Here Are the Facts: 4 Unlikely Digital Heroes 6 Simple Web Development Tips for Traditional Media How to Integrate Branded Content and Social Media

It’s no secret that the newspaper business is in very serious trouble.  That’s a problem for the companies that own newspapers and for the journalists who work for them, but it is also a problem for the rest of us. Newspapers make up the foundation of the fourth estate that is essential to the functioning of our society.  As somebody who has first hand experience with societies that lack a well functioning free press, I can tell you it isn’t a pretty picture. There is no problem with newspapers; it’s the newspaper business that needs to be fixed. The Broken Newspaper Business Model Historically, newspapers have been a fantastic business.  So much so, that the legendary investor Warren Buffet invested heavily in them (he still owns almost 20% of the Washington Post and a small slice of Gannet) and made a fortune. The model worked like this:  Newspapers would subsidize print and distribution in order to get the widest possible audience.  They would earn enormous money selling advertising space and more than make up for the money they lost getting papers into people’s hands. However, they didn’t sell just any kind of advertising, but largely classified advertising.  Anybody who wanted to advertise a job opening, sell a car or even find a lost cat would buy a text ad.  In actuality, newspapers made very little money from display ads that promoted brands. Then came the internet, the most powerful direct marketing tool ever devised, which shattered the newspaper business model.  Classified advertising abandoned newspapers for the web.  It’s never coming back. The Chinese Wall Another crucial element to the business model was the “Chinese Wall” that separated editorial and business interests.  This was to insure that the reporting remained independent.  While it didn’t guarantee truth, whatever falsities that appeared would be come by honestly. For editors, the Chinese Wall is sacred.  It represents much more than a business practice, it is a rallying cry; a reason for being.  The idea that commercial considerations have no place in editorial rooms is considered to be fundamental to journalistic integrity. Unfortunately, loyalty to an idea rather than its purpose is a recipe for disaster.  The Chinese Wall concept needs to be updated.  Most importantly, this can be done without endangering journalistic integrity. The Fundamental Difference between Print and Online Media Businesses Print businesses sell space.  Electronic media manages inventory. If a TV station sold all of their prime time, but not their fringe time dayparts they would go broke.  There are a certain amount of hours in the day and a limited amount of commercials per hour.  Whatever you don’t sell you lose.  Costs are up front while revenues are on the back end. Print is different.  You can add or subtract space fairly easily.  Fewer ads mean fewer pages and lower costs.  More supply can be created in order to meet greater demand. It is clear that for newspapers to be profitable, they will have to make the web profitable.  Online newspapers are an electronic medium.  The business needs to be run that way. Managing Inventory Online The value of inventory on the web varies widely.  Commodity pages, such as social media, go for about one dollar per thousand views (CPT).  Coveted placement on the home pages of valuable brands can go for as much as $100 CPT. Advertisers don’t buy web pages, they buy campaigns.  They will gladly buy expensive inventory on a site like ESPN.com or NYTimes.com and then use cheap commodity space to bring the campaign in for a price. What’s crucial to understand here is that a media owner needs to have both.  If you only have cheap commodity space, it’s hard to make money (which is why very few social media sites are profitable).  On the other hand, if you only have prime inventory you’ll also go broke. Managing an online advertising business is like running a mortgage bond business.  You don’t sell the inventory as one unit, but break it up into tranches that can be mixed and match by advertisers to create efficient campaign portfolios. Newspapers prospered with a similar model, small amounts of premium inventory combined with large amounts of classifieds was essential a print version of the same thing.  Online though, they seem to have lost their way. Rethinking the Chinese Wall Print is static.  Ads placed next to content stay there.  Editors have a responsibility to make sure that there is no appearance of impropriety. The web is dynamic.  An ad appears with a page view, not a specific article.  With less risk of undue commercial influence comes less responsibility. Moreover, editorial and business sides need to work together in order to ensure the right inventory mix.  Pulitzer prizewinning content can generate not only high ad rates, but also crucial low cost inventory through reader discussion and other social components.  That doesn’t diminish the value of journalism, it enhances it. Most of all, it creates a profitable business.  An efficient portfolio of prime and fringe inventory is what advertisers demand and that’s what online businesses need to deliver. Stealing the “Free” Model While more effective inventory management will help improve online revenues, print operations aren’t going away anytime soon.  Even with the diminished potential due to the online competition, traditional operations contribution to overhead is essential for maintaining a large and talented editorial staff that can competently report and comment on a broad range of topics.. One possible solution is to take a take a key insight from free newspaper business models.  These younger players expect to lose money from the daily newspaper, but they earn enormous margins on high margin supplements. In effect, the idea is similar to the way newspapers used to lose money with the content heavy part of the paper but earned tons of money on classified sections.  The key difference being that the new emphasis needs to be on brand building display advertising rather than on direct response, where the internet reins supreme. A More Integrative Approach In order for a newspaper business of the future to work, functions need to be integrated at the implementational level.  Editorial, technology, user interface. sales and marketing all need to work together to create not only products that inform, entertain and inspire, but also the right ad  inventory mix. Journalists can no longer create value on their own in blissful ignorance of business realities.  While they shouldn’t cater to specific advertising interests, they do need to create products that will build profit margins.  This has nothing to do with independence, but has everything to do with survival. This isn’t a problem that can be solved in meetings, but must be overcome by building strong day-to-day working relationships.  Cross-functional teams need to be built and turf battles need to be banished.  There is no such thing as “healthy competition” between departments.  Everybody is going to have to work together. Finally, as Rishad Tobaccowalla points out, for newspapers to thrive again there needs to be a fundamental shift in the way they are managed.  Sacred cows are a luxury that a starving business can not afford. - Greg                            Related posts:How to Fix the New York Times How Traditional Media Can Make Digital Profitable The Real Problem with NYTimes.com Sorry, Rupert Murdoch…Content Will Remain Free. Here Are the Facts: How Magazine Publishers Can Transform Themselves into Digital Giants

Google’s latest search engine feature enables users to search for individual TV episodes and sort the results by season in each series.Just search for a TV series like Mad Men or The Office, then click the “Show options…” button above the results. A panel appears on the left with several options; you can click “Videos” to narrow your search to videos, and after that the option to search for “Episodes” instead of “All videos.”Google knows how many seasons most shows have — it even listed two seasons for the Felicia Day web series The Guild — so you can pick the season you want to watch and see only those episodes. The search engine indexes numerous pay-based and advertising-supported video sites. It includes YouTube, Hulu, Vimeo, Amazon, Dailymotion, and network video sites like NBC.com, BBC.co.uk and AMCTV.com, among others.This is just catch-up on Google’s part, though. Television search engine startup Clicker has these features and more, but options are always welcome.[via Search Engine Land]For more web video coverage, follow Mashable Web Video on Twitter or become a fan on FacebookReviews: Amazon.com, Clicker, Facebook, Google, Hulu, Twitter, Vimeo, YouTubeTags: amazon, Google, hulu, News, Search, television, tv, youtube

Repetition is the soul of wit, or so it would seem. Lies are always convenient, unencumbered as they are by the burdens of fact, but if they are repeated enough they can become popular as well.  As lies spread, they will eventually encounter themselves and become self affirming. (Oh, you heard that too?). Here’s a quick guide to five of my favorite lies which are making the rounds as we speak: Nobody Watches TV Anymore Of course, this is an exaggerative.  I don’t think anybody really is saying that literally nobody is watching TV, just that the medium is declining and people are watching much less of it.  With expanding digital and mobile media, people  finally have more interesting things to do, like tweeting and making fun of their boss on Facebook, so obviously they must be watching TV less. It sounds reasonable, but is completely untrue..  The 2010 Super Bowl was the most watched TV event ever, breaking a record that stood for more than thirty years.  Moreover, as this article in Ad Age reports, Americans are spending more time in front of the TV than ever before – nearly five hours a day! Some might say that we have to be careful when using averages.  As the population ages, it’s logical that the increased percentage of retirees might nudge up the TV stats.  However, a recent Nielsen report shows that teens are watching more TV as well, up about 6% over the past five years. The demise of TV is truly a great lie – seemingly reasonable and forward looking while also not bearing even a passing resemblance to the facts. Advertisers Are Finally Starting To Understand the Power of Digital This lie is becoming a “golden oldie.”  It seems to have persisted in almost every one of the last fifteen years (with a brief hiatus after the dotcom crash). Again, the story line is compelling: clueless fat cats in corporate boardrooms all of the sudden have been awakened from their slumbers and have begun to accept truths that they can no longer ignore.  The tide has turned and a new day has arrived! In actuality, advertisers have been experimenting with digital since the beginning and, in fact, marketing managers go to great lengths to show that they are digitally savvy.  However, beyond direct response, the performance of digital campaigns has been disappointing. Most likely, digital advertising will attain the current market share of TV in 10 or 15 years, or roughly three decades since its inception.  Given that the web is the most rapidly adopted technology in history, this is a woeful result. As long as the digital media players continue to blame those who “don’t get it” for their own lousy performance, the lie will persist, money will be lost and businesses will fail. Pepsi dropped the Super Bowl to Spend $20 million in Social Media I scratch my head about this one, because the math doesn’t work – a Super Bowl Ad only costs $2.5 million.  Nevertheless, the notion seems to be a favorite on Twitter and digital marketing blogs. The real story is that Pepsi is giving $20 million away to charity, which they will promote on their own web site and on a Facebook fan page.  While innovative and admirable, it’s tough to see how the promotion will provide much of a boost to social media business plans. Moreover, the Pepsi Corporation not only did not abandon the Super Bowl, but was the second largest advertiser (tied with Paramount Pictures), buying three spots for their Doritos brand.  As for the Super Bowl itself, it was sold out once again with multiple digital and tech advertisers. If every time a major marketer decides to experiment with a new strategy the digital world touts it as a harbinger of things to come, it will never adopt the integrative approach it needs to become a real player in the media industry. It’s All About the Conversation Apparently, for decades companies could be successful by gleefully ignoring their consumers. Now, as the story goes, the public demands not only service, but conversation.  This lie puzzles me, but I guess the rationale is that since everybody has supposedly stopped watching TV they are lonely and need a social life. Obviously, companies have long known that listening to consumers is essential and have long spent billions every year on focus groups and other research.  Social media does offer some exciting new corporate communication tools and is making listening easier and more effective.  That’s extremely valuable. In the end, however, marketers need to get their message across and that requires broadcasting.  Two-way dialogues, for all of their charms, just aren’t nearly efficient enough. The notion that people constantly want to actively engage media reminds me of when my brother visited me in Kiev a few years ago and asked me if I watch foreign films.  “Watch ‘em?” I said, “I’m living in one!” The truth is that we like to be entertained passively because most of our lives are filled with things that require our constant attention like work, family and friends.  The last thing we want is to have an ongoing dialogue with every brand we interact with. I Have a Right to My Opinion! I saved this for last because it’s my favorite.  It’s undeniably true in the abstract, but invariably a lie when it’s invoked.  No one (except perhaps for the heavily medicated) actually means that they would like to hold an opinion but are being prevented from doing so. What they really want is to have their opinions taken seriously and are frustrated when an uncaring world doesn’t comply.  So they blurt out, “I have a right to my opinion!”  In truth, they aren’t asserting their own rights but seek to restrict others from making honest judgments. Of course, the matter at hand usually has nothing to do with opinions at all, but facts.  Unfortunately, it’s hard to muster the requisite amount of self-righteous indignation while proclaiming “I have a right to my own set of facts!” There are some people who simply want to believe “old media” and “old marketers” who earn billions of dollars of profits every year continue to do so by way of some mass delusion, no matter what the reality is.  Unfortunately, facts, like paying taxes, can only be avoided for so long. Of course, these are just my opinions…And I have a right to them. - Greg                            Related posts:5 Social Media Myths 5 things “New Media” can learn from “Old Media” The Importance of Paying Attention The ROI of Social Broadcast Cultural Sanctimony: Can the Digital World Overcome its Arrogance?

In January we previewed Popbox, an upcoming Internet media center from Syabas, the people behind the Popcorn Hour devices.Today Syabas is officially launching the Popbox SDK so that developers can start building apps for the device, which is scheduled to hit the streets sometime this quarter. The SDK will enable developers to build apps that feature live or on-demand video services, plus access to social networks, music, photos and even some light games — all from the comfort of a user’s couch and HDTV. The SDK uses Adobe Flash Lite 3.1, which means that existing Flash applications can be easily converted into Popapps for the Popbox. These applications can then be downloaded directly to the Popbox. Additionally, the Popapp Center (i.e. the Popbox’s app store) will also be available to Popcorn Hour A-200 and C-200 owners.Here are screenshots showing off some of the interface details of the upcoming Popbox:Like Boxee, Roku and DivX TV, content from both web and traditional content partners can be displayed alongside social networks and content stored on other networked devices.The Popcorn Hour has had a lot of success as an enthusiast device, in large part because it can handle almost any sort of streaming content, including MKV files in high bitrates. It does a really nice job of bridging media content stored on laptops, desktops and media servers to the living room. Popbox aims to go one step further and pair that with an improved interface, plus access to non-local content.The convergence of the web and TV is finally starting to hit its stride in 2010. In addition to Popbox and Boxee — who is releasing Boxee Box soon — more established devices like TiVo and the PlayStation 3 are also improving their connected offerings. Even Google is reportedly looking into launching its own set-top box. I talked about some of these shifts on CNET’s Reporters’ Roundtable a couple of weeks ago.The key to having sustainable success with these devices is to deliver products that are both affordable and have robust content options. Popbox already has partnerships with some companies like Revision3, and the fact that its SDK is based on Flash Lite might prove enticing for developers who are looking to enter the connected TV space. For instance, I’d love to see a Movieclips.com Popapp.What do you think about the trends in connected devices and IPTV? Let us know.For more technology coverage, follow Mashable Tech on Twitter or become a fan on FacebookReviews: Boxee, Facebook, TwitterTags: boxee, connected tv, gadgets, iptv, popbox, popcorn hour, tech

Screenshot courtesy of Syabas Technology Everyone from Steve Jobs to a member of the Mozilla team we spoke to at SXSW blames Adobe Flash for crashing their technology, and the lack of support for it on the iPhone OS — even for apps that began their lives as Adobe creations — has sparked controversy all over the web. Adobe even says Apple’s ban might actually “harm” its business. But it’s too early to ring the death knell for Flash. Not only will Google Android smartphones and tablets run Flash, but an entirely new market for the web-centric technology is opening up in the old media of television — of all places. The new $129 Popbox set-top box announced Thursday by Syabas Technology, makers of the beloved Popcorn Hour set-top boxes, is an app platform similar to the one on the iPhone OS, except that it’s designed for your HDTV — and that developers can easily port Flash apps to play on it. At its launch, slated for the second quarter of this year, Syabas says its $129 Popbox will include apps from Channels.com (an aggregator of web-based television shows), FunSpot Games, Netflix, Photobucket (photo sharing), Revision3 (original video programming), Shoutcast internet radio and Twitter. At this stage, Syabas’ own developers are working on these apps, but after launch, the platform will open to whoever wants to build an app. “This is a huge opportunity for the Flash development community to create popapps for the primary screen in the home,” said Popbox COO Alex Limberis. “The possibilities are endless and we can’t wait to see what the community comes up with.” Syabas’ existing Popcorn Hour set-top boxes have an installed base of 50,000 — orders of magnitude less than Apple’s estimated 85-million-plus iPhone OS devices, between the iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch — and also dwarfed by those provided by cable and satellite companies and Tivo. And indeed, in the decade or so I’ve been writing about boxes that promise “finally” to connect televisions to local computers and the internet, they remain the realm of early adopters. That could change, as an increasing number of consumers look to ditch their monthly cable bills in favor of a mix of free online video, paid streaming from Amazon, Netflix and the like, and video downloaded from bit torrent to their computers and streamed over WiFi. Popbox leans on Flash apps to do that, Boxee supports Flash apps too, and we suspect set-top boxes like these will grow more popular, especially because their open APIs allow the development of non-video technologies such as Popbox’s Twitter interface and the Flash games that Boxee has planned. “As we look out there at different content sources, the majority of them run in Flash, so it’s a key element of what makes Boxee successful,” said Boxee vice president of marketing Andrew Kippen, who confirmed that Boxee supports Flash apps. “We made sure to support Flash 10.1 … and even though we’re concentrating on video for the moment, a next step in our road map is definitely how we bring Flash games into the platform.” Why would someone need a set-top box like this when televisions are adding internet connections? Television manufacturers are almost as excited about selling you “internet-ready” televisions as they are about selling you 3-D televisions, but the designation rings a bell. Remember when printer companies used to sell printers by labeling them as internet-ready, when really, any printer was capable of printing from the net? The same goes for televisions. If anything is going to convince people to link their televisions to the internet, it will likely be set-top boxes designed with open architectures. Flash could be coming to cable- and satellite-television set-top boxes too, as Google and Dish Network reportedly work on switching them over to the Flash-supporting Android operating system. But only a fool would expect a cable or satellite provider to offer a truly open internet-video experience. Standalone set-top boxes like Boxee and Popbox increasingly look like the way tech-savvy, thrifty consumers will deliver some or all of the video they watch on their televisions. And they use Flash, even if Apple won’t. See Also: Steve Jobs Debates Developers Over Apple’s New App Policy Google’s ‘Don’t Be Evil’ Mantra is ‘Bullshit,’ Adobe Is Lazy HTML5 for iPad Won’t Kill Flash, But Could Change Apps Boxee Unveils Public Beta, ‘Boxee Box’ Hardware YouTube Blocks Non-Partner Device Syabas as Allegations Fly

The CSS gradient feature was introduced by Webkit for about two years but was rarely used due to incompatibility with most browers. But now with the Firefox 3.6+, which supports gradient, we can style create gradient without having to create an image. This post will show you how to code for the CSS gradient to be supported by the major browsers: IE, Firefox 3.6+, Safari, and Chrome. Also, check out my updated dropdown menu (demo) using CSS gradient. (more…)

It’s notoriously difficult to measure the value of social media—but apparently not impossible. Social media specialist Vitrue looked at its clients’ data for Facebook to determine exactly how much a Facebook fan is worth, as AdWeek reports, and they came up with a number: $3.60. Vitrue’s clients boast a combined 41 million Facebook fans. For the most part, each fan yielded an extra impression. They assumed twice-daily posts bringing in 60M impressions and used a $5 CPM, “meaning a brand’s 1 million fans generate about $300,000 in media value each month. Using Vitrue’s calculation, Starbucks’ 6.5 million fan base — acquired in part with several big ad buys — is worth $23.4 million in media annually.” Not all brands are created equal. Vitrue found wildly divergent impression-to-fan ratios. Some marketers generated just .44 impressions per fan, while another saw 3.6 impressions. [Michael Strutton, chief product officer at Vitrue,] chalked that up to sexier brands having more engaged connections, giving them access to the news feed more often. The impressions are not unique. The $3.60 figure is the value over the course of a year, but is only a basic figure, since it doesn’t take into account engagement value, or the value of secondary mentions (such as when your fan page activity shows up on a user’s profile, and someone who isn’t your fan sees the post). What do you think? What are Facebook fans worth to your company? Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

I hesitate to introduce a video with the vague declaration “This is amazing,” cause it doesn’t really grab your attention and force you to watch it, but in the case of this video, “Pixels”, I am forcing you to watch it, and I am going to just say “This is amazing,” because it’s amazing: PIXELS by PATRICK JEAN. (via Gorillamask)

  We at the Ampersand would like to thank a moment to send birthday wishes to a truly great Canadian, Mr. William Shatner.  Whether hes treading the boards at Stratford, securing the safety of the galaxy aboard the Enterprise, or making sure we know the great deals to be had at Priceline.com, Shatner has entertained us for decades with his trademark acting style. In lieu of cake and novelty candles, you can follow the veteran actor on Twitter or, if you have highly tolerant office mates, take part in International Talk Like William Shatner Day.   Photo: William Shatner performs at the 2007 Just for Laughs Festival in Montreal. (John Morstad/Canwest News Service)

If you weren’t able to pick up tickets for Conan O’Brien’s “Legally Prohibited From Being Funny on Television Tour” the first time around, you’ve just been given a second chance by way of a contest the former late night host announced on Twitter.The contest is a promotion for American Express (disclosure: also a Mashable sponsor), asking users to follow the credit card company on Twitter and then tweet “Hey @americanexpress I want to be with Coco in (insert city from list below). Pick me! http://bit.ly/bEUqsh #amexConan.”The winners –- who will get two tickets for Conan shows in either New York, Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco or Los Angeles — will be selected at random from the tweets sent out between now and 11:59 p.m. ET on Monday.American Express is sponsoring the tour, but this new twist on its promotion should give the company an opportunity to gain thousands of followers in a hurry, assuming the Twittersphere is still as crazy for Coco as it was when he signed up only a month ago.Reviews: Mashable, TwitterTags: conan o'brien, twitter

There’s an interesting post today at Facebook’s engineering blog, detailing how Facebook’s engineers managed to make the site two times faster in a six-month period — from June of 2009 till the beginning of 2010.It’s an interesting (albeit somewhat technical) read. In short, Facebook’s primary concerns were shortening network time (the time it takes for data to be transmitted between the user’s computer and Facebook) and render time (the time it takes the user’s web browser to process a response from Facebook and display the page). They managed to speed up the site primarily by reducing the number of cookies and cutting back on JavaScript.Finally, they divided a typical Facebook page into parts (which they call pagelets), which can be loaded one after another (instead of waiting for the entire page to load. From the post:“Over the last few months we’ve implemented exactly this ability for Facebook pages. We call the whole system BigPipe and it allows us to break our web pages up in to logical blocks of content, called Pagelets, and pipeline the generation and render of these Pagelets. Looking at the home page, for example, think of the newsfeed as one Pagelet, the Suggestions box another, and the advertisement yet another. BigPipe not only reduces the TTI of our pages but also makes them seem even faster to users since seeing partial content earlier feels faster than seeing complete content a little bit later.”While this is nice to know, it’s hard not to notice the recent user complaints that Facebook is slower than ever (it’s been that way for me, too). Of course, the Facebook experience is different for users in different countries, so it’s hard to say whether it’s a global problem, but one thing is certain: With Facebook’s userbase growing the way it does, keeping the site fast enough will always be a challenge.Reviews: FacebookTags: facebook, social media, social networking, trending, Web Development

GMAIL USERS: We hope you’ll join the discussion over on Mashable’s Google Buzz account.The Social Analyst is a weekly column by Mashable Co-Editor Ben Parr, where he digs into social media trends and how they are affecting companies in the space.Google may have finally figured out social media, even if there have been some major slip-ups in the way. The implications of that realization could dramatically change social media as a tool and as an industry.On Tuesday, February 9th, Google launched Buzz for Gmail, a service for sharing thoughts, multimedia, and your social media feeds with your friends utilizing Gmail as the conduit. The result: over 160,000 Google Buzz posts and comments per hour.It’s becoming increasingly clear that Google didn’t launch a small addition to Gmail — no, it has dropped a nuclear bomb whose fallout will permanently alter the social media landscape. I could never have predicted that it would become so popular so fast when I first learned about it.Why? Why has it grown so rapidly? Why has it riled up such strong emotions on both sides? Are the privacy issues going to permanently damage Google? And most of all, what does Google Buzz mean for Twitter, Facebook, and the rest of the social media world?I’m going to tackle all of these questions and more in this week’s in-depth column.Google Buzz’s Skyrocketing UsageWhile it’s still very early into Buzz’s life cycle, initial indications show that Google has a hit on its hands. Linking Buzz to Gmail’s millions of users has clearly brought people into the company’s new social domain.Google has only released two numbers so far: there have been over 9 million posts and comments in about 56 hours, amounting to around 160,000 posts and comments per hour. That’s even more impressive if you consider the fact that most users didn’t get Buzz until Wednesday the 10th.The other number: over 200 mobile check-ins per minute, nearly 300,000 mobile check-ins per day.Those numbers are simply stellar.Why Have Users Embraced Buzz? It’s a question that has both simple and complex answers: why has Google Buzz taken off as a service (thus far) in ways that Orkut, Google Friend Connect, and Google’s other attempts at social media did not?Let’s start with the most obvious one, and one I think was a brilliant move, despite the privacy issues: it’s wired directly into Gmail. With a flip of a switch, Buzz gained tens of millions of users. With the Buzz tab just directly under “Inbox,” the service creating its own unread count, and Buzz emails flooding inboxes, how could people not try it out?The embrace goes deeper than that, though. I asked the Mashable Buzz community the following: “Why do think Google Buzz has gained traction so quickly? What’s the #1 reason you find yourself using Buzz?”Here are some of the responses we received that I believe really sum up Buzz’s popularity: - Adrian Eden: Ease of use and simple interface- Eyal Herlin – it just works for me. i like the zero effort setup and the making of connections easy- Sheldon Steiger – #1? It’s embedded into Gmail. After that, it seems to be exposing me to people and subjects that were not readily visible in the other networks.- Roy Ruhling – On a scale of 1-10 for “socialness” of social networks Twitter is about a 3, Facebook is about a 4 and Buzz is about a 9. It honestly and truly connects people from all over the world instantaneously- Daniel L – The main reason buzz is growing so quickly is because it is easily accessible to Gmail’s large and already established user base. Normally, Gmail is the one site i always have open because it has my calendar, my to do list, and my chat all in one window. Because of this, i always see when i have new Buzz, and i will tend to check it and respond. This is the #1 reason i use it — convenience.Summary: Easy to use, accessible, convenient, closer social circle, moves in real-time, engaging…Google’s got a monster on its hands.Addressing the Privacy Issue One of the obstacles to Google Buzz’s growth — and a major point of criticism — has been the privacy issue. Since it’s linked directly into Gmail, people can figure out your email address. Since it auto-followed your most emailed friends, people could figure out your email habits.All of these issues are legitimate, but here’s the thing: Google is responding with lightning speed. Yesterday the search giant made some serious privacy tweaks, making auto-follow into auto-suggest and giving you the ability to completely kill Buzz if you so choose.In a few months, few will remember these privacy snafus. Just as people have forgotten about the Facebook News Feed fiasco and other Facebook disasters, people will forgive and forget about Buzz’s initial privacy concerns.In that sense, Google will get the best of both worlds: it has seeded Google Buzz with people and content via the auto-follow and automatic opt-in features, but it won’t feel the heat for privacy issues due to the recent changes to both. It may have been unintended, but it was savvy.The Potential Impact on Twitter and FacebookNow that we’ve established that Google Buzz is growing and isn’t likely to go anywhere anytime soon, it’s time to look towards what will happen next.If Google Buzz is here to stay, what does that mean for the two kingpins of social media, Twitter and Facebook?If you don’t think both companies haven’t had constant meetings over the potential impact of Buzz, then you are kidding yourselves. There’s no way both companies don’t have people analyzing scenarios and Google’s plan for its social media wunderkind.To analyze the potential impact of Buzz on both services, lets look at the key questions for Twitter and Facebook, and some possible answers: Q: Will Buzz Kill either Facebook or Twitter? A: No. There’s probably nothing that could kill either service. The user bases are too large and passionate for that to happen.Q: Could Buzz slow down the growth of Fb/Twitter? A: Absolutely. Imagine that 15 million people are spending 15 more minutes in their Gmail inbox because of Buzz, whether that’s browsing what their friends are saying or creating their own posts. There are only 24 hours in a day, so that time has to be taken from somewhere.Yes, part of that time is being taken away from tweeting and facebooking. Even if it just means one less status update per person per day, that adds up to millions of updates lost to Buzz.The effect could be a lot worse. We just can’t know yet.Q: Could Buzz become bigger than Twitter? A: It already is: While we can’t pinpoint an exact number, Twitter has probably around 18-25 million users worldwide. Heck, let’s say there are 30 million to be generous. Gmail has over 38 million uniques in the U.S., and that was back in September 2009. Worldwide, that number is simply larger.Yes, there are far more tweets than comments/posts on Buzz right now, but beating those engagement numbers isn’t out of the question for Buzz.Q: Could advertisers and brands switch some of their dollars and focus from Facebook and Twitter to Buzz? A: With millions of people using Buzz, how could they not?Buzz is already taking a chunk out of Twitter, Facebook, and other social media services. That’ll only grow as brands and advertisers better understand what they can do with Buzz and its millions of users. Buzz is equivalent to throwing a giant super magnet into a room filled with nails.Predicting How Google Buzz Will Play OutGoogle Buzz has landed, and its impact is already changing the landscape. Gmail integration, real-time commenting, ease of use, and a new base of users that might not have been as socially engaged are now part of the Buzz universe.Not only can you expect Facebook and Twitter to respond with their own features and partnerships, but you can expect developers to shift their focus as well. Remember last year when there was a Twitter app gold rush? I do — as the service skyrocketed, countless developers embraced Twitter’s API and built amazing apps on top of it. Facebook had the same experience when its platform first launched.Now it’s Google’s turn. Buzz is an open platform, meaning that developers will soon be able to create new apps for Buzz — everything from iPhone apps to analytical services will be built on top of it.Now if Google wanted to really shake up the developer ecosystem, it could offer ad revenue share for Buzz apps and its own app store. Gmail advertising is already well developed, and if you haven’t noticed yet, Buzz already has Google ads being placed against it. Offering apps the ability to quickly and easily monetize within Google Buzz could really take away from development resources being placed towards Twitter, Facebook, and mobile platforms.If Buzz can keep up the momentum, everyone from publishers (like ourselves) to developers to Fortune 500 companies will have to pay attention to the conversations happening on Buzz. If this thing can drive traffic or put a big brand on its toes because of a buzz that goes viral, then there’s no telling how far it will go. Oh, and Google’s only just begun with this thing — more killer features are in its immediate future.The social media landscape has been permanently altered. To ignore Buzz would be a costly mistake, because Google has finally created the definition of a game-changer.Readers are invited to follow both Mashable and Ben Parr on Google Buzz.Reviews: Facebook, Gmail, Google, Google Buzz, Mashable, Orkut, Twitter, google friend connectTags: Column, facebook, friendfeed, Google, google buzz, Opinion, The Social Analyst, trending, twitter

The news broke today that Google will be buying Aardvark, a human (and algorithm) powered social search engine that I have written about quite a bit (early last year, most recently, all). I've also featured the service's founders at both Web2 and the CM Summit.) I've confirmed the news in an email with CEO Max Ventilla. I can't say I'm surprised by this news. Aardvark's founders and advisers have strong ties with Google (Ventilla worked there, and a key adviser was at Kaltix, which was purchased by Google). To me the critical question around this move is this: Will the Aardvark acquisition be a Dodgeball, or will it be a Applied Semantics? With Dodgeball, Google bought a promising startup in a strategically important space, but instead of integrating the technology and committing, it let it languish (the founders left and started Foursquare). Google later determined it must play in the space, and rolled out any number of features inside its mobile, map, and even Gmail products that mimic Dodgeball's early features. With Applied Semantics, Google again bought a promising startup in a strategically important space, but this time it successfully integrated the company's technology and team, driving a crucial new business - AdSense - to become a critical and game changing business for the company. So which is Aardvark? I'm not sure anyone at either company is sure, but Google is spending a reported $50 million to make sure no one else can find out. I do know Max well enough to say that his goal would be to see Aardvark integrated into the main search interface, such that when you ask Google a question, it would give you the option of "asking a human" through the 'vark service. Now that would be pretty cool. Not to mention, 'vark uses Facebook Connect as its core social graph for question answering. I certainly hope that will stand as the company integrates. The parties can't speak on the record about this yet, but another hope I have for this acquisition is that some of that 'vark DNA about humans being critical to search - not as data points, but as part of the solution, connecting one to the other - will somehow infect the Google genome. We'll see....

Peter Horrocks assumed the position of director of BBC Global News last week, and he’s not wasting time with niceties. The self-proclaimed technology enthusiast is telling journalists to get with the social media program or get out.As quoted in the BBC in-house weekly Ariel, the new director said, “This isn’t just a kind of fad… I’m afraid you’re not doing your job if you can’t do those things. It’s not discretionary.”On the social media front, Horrocks appears to take the stance that Twitter, RSS readers and other social media tools are extremely valuable news-gathering resources essential to the output of journalists working in these digital times.The report details that:“Aggregating and curating content with attribution should become part of a BBC journalist’s assignment; and BBC’s journalists have to integrate and listen to feedback for a better understanding of how the audience is relating to the BBC brand.Horrocks, formerly head of the BBC’s multimedia newsroom, finds clear words for it: ‘If you don’t like it, if you think that level of change or that different way of working isn’t right for me, then go and do something else, because it’s going to happen. You’re not going to be able to stop it.’”The strong statements mirror the behaviors of other newsrooms actively impressing upon employees the necessity of social media. Media companies like Sky News — who drastically switched up its newsroom to focus on Twitter — are making bold maneuvers to transition into the age of social media.Reviews: TwitterTags: bbc, media, Peter Horrocks, social media, trending, twitter