40Tech » television

iPhone 5 Thief Doesn’t Know Who He’s Messing With… Just Ask Conan [VIDEO]

Bobby Travis — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 07:34:40 +0000

You might remember the whole “iPhone 4 prototype swiped in a bar” fiasco. You’re probably aware that history has recently repeated itself with the iPhone 5. What you might not know is what Apple is planning to do about it. Never fear, however! Conan O’Brien and the good folks at Team Coco have put together a commercial that shows exactly what fate awaits the intrepid thief — and it ain’t gonna be pretty.

Click here to view the embedded video.

If you were Apple, what sort of fun things would you have in store for the prototype thief? How about the dumbass who let it happen – again? Presuming that it’s not all some sort of weird publicity stunt, of course.

Source: The Next Web

Here are some related posts that might interest you:

Netflix, Starz Battle Ends with Netflix Down Disney and Sony Content on February 28, 2012

Bobby Travis — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 18:27:56 +0000

Recently, Netflix angered a large amount of its US subscriber-base by announcing changes to its pricing model. It used to be that, if you wanted to do the Neflix videos-by-mail thing and stream content as well, it would only cost you an extra couple of bucks per month. Now (as of two days ago, in fact), if you want both, you need to pay double — $7.99 for each service. While the Netflix move may be understandable, and part of a potentially larger plan to phase out physical delivery altogether, the customer backlash was also unsurprising — and significant.

To make matters worse for Netflix, on the very day that the new pricing came into effect, Starz, the distributor of Sony and Disney content decided not to renew their contract with Netflix. This is probably going to hurt Netflix customer relationships even more, but believe it or not, it happened as a result of Netflix attempting to preserve their pricing model, and, presumably, to keep their customers from imploding.

Netflix has been doing well, business-wise, of late. They opened up content streaming in Canada — which I use all the time, even though we don’t get the coolest content up this way — and they have plans for world internet-streaming domination that could be very viable. Unfortunately, their content and entire business is dependent on their relationship with content license owners. Starz Entertainment apparently insisted that Netflix put their content behind an additional pay-wall, making customers pay more to access it. Netflix offered them in excess of $300 million per year for the content, but that wasn’t good enough for Big Media, who initially asked for more than 10 times what Netflix paid them in 2008, according to the Wall Street Journal.

In a press release, Starz cited the usual spiel regarding “protecting the premium nature” of their brand and “preserving the appropriate pricing” of their “exclusive and valuable content.” The bottom line here, however, is that Starz holds all of the cards here. Disney and Sony content is good content. It is sought after. In a statement to Business Insider, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings maintains that it only marks 8% of their overall audience views, and that the content would have likely gone down to 5-6% of domestic views by Q1 2012 anyway, but as we all know, it takes less than 8% of pissed off people who perceive that they’ve lost something they felt they paid for to make 80%-sized noise about it.

One also has to wonder if other Big Media groups will follow Starz lead. To many of them, Netflix is likely more of an experiment that they tolerate to see if it will pay out big in the long run. Now that the dollars are coming in, naturally, they are going to want a bigger cut — one that makes them feel more like they are returning to their original business model that made them a money hand over fist — you know, before the advent of broadband and the explosion of extremely easy content piracy.

Speaking of piracy… it has been proven that consumers, by and large, are willing to pay a subscription price for content. If they weren’t, Netflix would never work; neither would Hulu Plus, Rdio, Sirius, pay-to-play MMORPGs, or any of the other premium-based multimedia providers out there. However, those prices need to be reflective of the general feel of pricing online — pricing that Apple was the baseline for with iTunes and apps taking over the online world as we know it. That is to say, the pricing needs to be low-ish. If all of the major license holders start clamouring “premium subscriptions for our content or else,” Netflix and their sizeable customer base will be threatened. When a media consuming customer base is threatened, they jump ship — and they have a tendency to land in a submarine that stealths its way into a dialect punctuated with “yo ho ho’s” and the occasional “Aaargh!” Not to beat the pirate metaphor to death or anything…

So what do you think of Starz demands for a Netflix pay-wall for their content? What about their decision to pull out? Should Netflix have given in?

Here are some related posts that might interest you:

Netflix Streaming Comes to Canada (Mostly)

Bobby Travis — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:00:55 +0000

After a (very) long wait, Netflix has finally opened up in Canada. Well, mostly, anyway. For starters, the Canadian arm of the service is streaming only, no delivery, so that that immediately cuts down the amount of possible content available to Canadians. That was just the first content cut, however… Canadian usage rights for entertainment content have always been an added difficulty with any mainstream media service, and Netflix proves to be no different. Even though the service has finally found its way to Canada, when Hulu, Pandora, and even YouTube content is still restricted, the selection of movies and television episodes have been met with groans of disappointment by many.

It’s not all bad — Netflix loads what it does have fast, and with great quality — but for those hoping to watch as many of the newer/popular TV shows and movies that unlimited for $7.99 per month will get them, Netflix Canada will be found wanting. It’s still one step closer to killing off your cable bill, though.

Netflix launches in Canada with limited selection [Vancouver Sun]

Here are some related posts that might interest you:

Some Good, Some Bad in FCC Ruling that Allows Hollywood to Mess With Your Gear

Evan Kline — Fri, 21 May 2010 01:00:58 +0000

We don’t often cover news stories here at 40Tech, but this one bears mentioning. A recent FCC decision [PDF file from FCC site] now allows the movie industry to disable analog outputs on your equipment in certain situations. Say what? Yes, you heard that right- in some cases, a content provider can reach in and mess with your gear.

This started back in 2003, and an FCC ruling concerning Selectable Output Control (SoC). SoC is what the MPAA wants to use to close the analog hole, by disabling outputs that don’t support HDCP. Previously, such conduct was prohibited.

Under the FCC ruling, a movie that has never been released on DVD or Blu-ray can be restricted for 90 days, by using SoC to disable the analog outputs on your gear. As some have pointed out, this isn’t all bad, because the content in question would be content that isn’t currently available, so those with analog gear won’t be missing anything that is currently available.

What is the practical effect of this? It really has three ramifications, two of which are bad. First, owners of older equipment without HDMI ports might be unable to get some of this new content. Second, all owners will be unable to make backups of this new type of purchased content, as the analog hole will be closed (some articles solely discuss streaming or on demand content, but it is hard to imagine that the industry won’t try to sell you movies, too, leaving you at their mercy to save it on their system). Third, if you have a newer television, you may get access to new content.

Is this a good thing? Does the ability to get new releases, earlier, offset the control the movie industry will be able to exert over your gear?

Photo by RocketRaccoon

Here are some related posts that might interest you:

Never Buy Expensive HDMI Cables – Buy Lots Of Cheap Ones and Still Come Out Ahead

Bobby Travis — Fri, 14 May 2010 01:00:51 +0000

If you haven’t already heard, or discovered for yourself: Monster cables are a rip off — especially when it comes to the world of high definition digital cables. Salespeople at your local electronics store (and Monster itself) will do their best to convince you that, to get optimal video and audio quality out of your new hi-def system or video card, you need that top of the line, $150 6-foot hdmi cable. What most probably won’t tell you is that the store gets a much higher profit (and salespeople get more commission) on your expensive cable purchase than they do from your new LCD TV or Playstation 3. What they also won’t tell you is that you will get the exact same results from a $10-$20 HDMI cable that you will from it’s super-expensive counterpart.

HDMI cables are a digital medium, not analogue. There is no line loss or any other form of signal degradation. It simply works or it doesn’t. HDMI (High Definition Multimedia Interface) is simply a transfer of bits and bites from one place to another, and no amount of gold plating, shielding, or gas compression will make any difference in signal quality. The worst you will have to fear from a low-cost cable is poor construction — as in a break in the line that causes the signal to not pass through properly between devices. This can happen in an HDMI cable of any price range, make or model, and $10 is lot easier to walk away from than $150! Monster and other companies present a varied list of HDMI products citing everything from shielding to data transfer speeds. So far, none of these things have made any difference whatsoever in signal quality tests; and if data transfer speeds ever become an issue, there will soon enough be inexpensive cables that do the same work as the crazy pricey ones. This stance on HDMI cables is widely supported by CNET.com and other sources — CNET even uses cheap cables in their Home Theater Lab, where they do all of their product testing, and they point you at Monoprice.com, Amazon (one for $2.43…), and Newegg (as well as their own site) as good places to get HDMI cables on the cheap. Imagine: with a $10 price-point you could get 5 HDMI cables and a 4 Port HDMI Switch box to connect your PS3, Xbox 360, computer and hi-definition cable box for more than $50 less than the price of one 6ft Monster HDMI cable (HDMI 1000hd Ultimate). With no loss in quality. At all. I don’t know about you, but that’s more than enough to give me pause… In fact, that’s how my current media centre is configured. Check out this infographic by WallStats.com (from the article The Rip on Mint.com) that illustrates the idea: Budget Planner – Mint.com So how much are you willing to pay for an HDMI cable?

Here are some related posts that might interest you:

Redux: An Awesome Way to Waste Time

Bobby Travis — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:30:08 +0000

Recently, I was lucky enough to get an invitation to the beta of real-time video-sharing service, Redux. So far, the experience has been awesome! Redux has provided me with an easy way to discover and share video from all over the web. By connecting me with multiple users and groups sharing all manner of interesting things (from funny, to serious, to music, to downright strange), I can watch video from YouTube, MetaCafe, Funny or Die, College Humor, Hulu (if I were in the US…), Viddler, blip.tv and more (see image for full list). Other services are supported as well, but you get linked out to another window with a handy Redux title overlay that you can use to continue to share and comment from.

All of this is updated in my personal stream, in real time, where I can comment on the fly while watching the videos I choose; as well as thumb up content, share on Twitter and Facebook, and follow users and groups that share videos that are more to my taste.

Perhaps my favourite feature, though, is TV Mode, which I will explain in a moment. First, I have something for you folks! Redux is still in closed beta, but the community is already thriving. I happen to have some 12 invitations left and I may be able to get more. I’ll let you know how you can get your hands on them after the jump.

Redux is growing and changing fast. The staff is clever and friendly and are highly focused on building Redux into the mother of all instant-entertainment machines. They listen to their community and build on good ideas quickly. In the month that I have been using the service, they have improved their sharing and commenting interface, made it easier to share new videos with the addition of a multi-browser bookmarklet, made it easier for users to deal with duplicate content, are adding more social options within the service, and have begun work on a new instant-action interface and the possibility of integrating your Facebook, Twitter and other social streams into Redux for a one-stop online experience. Oh, and they have added a Random feature to TV Mode, too.

I like TV Mode. It‘s what made the service for me. I’m a busy fellow, and I don’t have a lot of time to watch the crap that is on at scheduled times on TV anymore. It’s often hard to find an hour to watch an entire show these days anyway, and Redux makes it easy for me to blow off a bit of steam, get some info, and maybe bust a gut or two with no fuss and no bother. I just flip into TV Mode, go Full Screen, and either pick a channel I am interested in and start watching, or I just hit that cool little Random button and click away till I find something that suits me — which doesn’t take long. It brings me back to the zen experience that channel flicking used to be, only now I get to stop and stroke my budding ADHD for a moment with something that might actually be good! Yay, I say!

Redux is moving fast toward their official launch, and should be a very entertaining force to be reckoned with online before long. I highly recommend you check them out! To that end…

The first 12 people to hit me up in the comments for invites, quoting a line from an Arnold Shwarzenegger movie shall receive one of my 12 invites to Redux. If it turns out there is a high demand for more, I’ll bug the marketing people over at Redux and we’ll see what happens. And yes, you can have more than one invite if you post more than one comment with a different Arnie quote each time.

See you on the ‘dux!

UPDATE: I have discovered that you can also use Redux for sharing regular web content now. This link is a good example of that, as well as a good showcase of the toolbar overlay. It is also a bit weird…

Here are some related posts that might interest you:

5 Critical Reasons to Root Against Comcast’s Online Television

Evan Kline — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:05:53 +0000

Over at Technologizer, Harry McCracken recently contemplated whether Comcast’s On Demand Online service was reason enough to stick with Comcast, if you are considering dropping your television service. On Demand Online is a Hulu-like service still in development that, once released, will allow Comcast subscribers to view shows and other content online. There are at least five reasons to root against Comcast’s On Demand Online. Even if Comcast isn’t your provider, or you live in a country with different online TV options, some of these reasons should apply to you, too.

1. It could kill off free internet TV like Hulu Right now, there are plenty of free television options, both legal (such as Hulu and abc.com in the U.S.) and not so legal (such as BitTorrent). My wife and I have watched entire seasons of Lost on abc.com, for nothing more than the cost of our internet connection (of course, this also inspired us to buy the boxed set of other seasons). What happens if Comcast’s service takes off? Will other cable operators follow Comcast’s example and start their own online services? And will Comcast be inspired to expand its online offerings? While at least one site reports that Comcast’s service will offer mostly new content that is not available at other sites, I wouldn’t expect it to stay that way if On Demand Online is a success. That could put it in direct competition with sites like Hulu, which would be bad news for the long term viability of Hulu. Worse yet, if Comcast succeeds, could the television networks rethink the free model of sites like Hulu, and pull their content?
2. It would fracture the online television viewing experience Even now, it can be a challenge at times to hunt down a show online, when you’re not sure which service carries it. The addition of one more streaming television site would further fracture the market, eliminating the possibility of a single-stop experience. While not the end of the world, this is less than ideal for consumers, especially the less tech-savvy ones.
3. It will drive up prices Many people would love to see the day when the cable television conglomerates become irrelevant, after years of price increases. With the advent of sites like Hulu, it seemed like those days might be on the distant horizon. But if cable providers preemptively use one area of market strength (traditional television) to muscle their way to dominance in the online world, what do you think will happen to prices? History has already told us the answer to that question. Some might argue that technology like BitTorrent provides an alternative that could keep prices in check, but the use of BitTorrent is a foreign concept to the average user.
4. You won’t get any breaks on your bandwidth My initial thought when I learned of the On Demand Online service, was that it might spell good news for bandwidth caps. Surely, Comcast could not impose its 250 GB monthly cap on users of this service? I was surprised to learn that Comcast will count On Demand Online traffic towards its 250 GB monthly bandwidth cap. Yes, you will have bandwidth concerns regardless of how you get your internet television content. At least with Hulu or other options, though, the bandwidth is your only additional cost. You aren’t paying a television subscription fee as well. With Comcast, it will be a double whammy, since you will still have to pay your cable television bill. In theory, Comcast could change its policy, and give its On Demand traffic special treatment so that it didn’t count against the cap. Or could it? Would that be similar to the traffic shaping practices for which Comcast has already gotten slapped by the FCC?
5. Your use of third party hardware will be restricted You may have heard about the whole Hulu/Boxee fiasco, where the Boxee media server platform provided for fairly seamless access to Hulu content, until Hulu blocked that access at the request of its content providers (presumably the television networks). What followed was a game of cat and mouse, with Boxee finding a workaround, and Hulu blocking access, back and forth. If you think that was bad, can you imagine what restrictions will be in place on a cable company sponsored service, especially if the cable companies drive Hulu out of business? A lack of competition stifles innovation, and fosters restrictions (just think of bandwidth caps). Ask TiVo about the headaches they’ve had getting cable companies to play nice without FCC involvement. I don’t have a crystal ball, but I predict that most cable companies will aim for a very controlled environment, with only authorized third party hardware able to play online content. And that is if we’re lucky. So, what do you think? Is traditional television going to die off? Or is the convergence of TV and internet never going to happen? Whether it is or not, will you be rooting for a service like Comcast On Demand Online?