LIVEdigitally

Author Archives: Jeremy Toeman

I Is In UR TV Stand, Not Be Fittng!!1!

Posted on by

I Is In UR TV Stand, Not Be Fittng!!1!

As I’m still in the midst of my living room media center cleanup, I went to pick up a new TV stand.  My requirements were, I thought, simple:

  1. Front doors, preferably see-through (need the doors for the arrival of babytoe)
  2. At least four shelves for all devices (AV receiver, STB, Xbox 360, “hold for future”) – yes, I’m ditching all other products in the living room other than Slingbox and Sonos, neither of which really need their own shelf.
  3. Easy access to back panels so I can add/remove devices without taking everything apart
  4. Not ultra-modern looking

You’d be amazed how hard this combination is to find.  I eventually settled on the one you see pictured above (my inspiration), a $229 DIY special from Tarjay.  I measured everything, all was fine.  It was simple to assemble, only needed a screwdriver and hammer, took about an hour all-in.

This afternoon, I was all set to do the migration, I expected about 45 minutes with all the cabling and whatnot.  As it turns out, again visible in the picture above, the 16″ depth is accurate, but useless.  The inside is exactly 16″ deep, making it the exact size of my receiver and Comcast DVR.  Here’s how I feel about it:

 

The Ins and Outs of Engadget

Posted on by

I honestly can’t imagine that I have a single reader who is not either a subscriber or a frequent reader of Engadget, the world’s largest tech/gadget blog.  The site, run by Peter Rojas and Ryan Block (who recently wrote his 5000th post!), averages 25-40 posts per day, all with the latest scoops of new products coming your way (or occasionally, the ones you’ll never get to see depending on the country you live in).

When I left Sling last year, one of the areas where I knew I wanted to focus some of my personal time was in writing. My blogging activity soared (well, plummetted then soared).  However, when I was given the opportunity to write a recurring column for Engadget, it represented a new level of writing in my eyes.  While I try to make sure the content I write here is always interesting and thoughtful (I said “I try” didn’t I?), there are basically no expectations.  I write what I want, when I want.

With my new column, however, the standards are much, much higher.  Millions of people read Engadget each month, and my writing must be a contribution to that readership.  Also, as a veteran who has actually built the gadgets for a living, I really want to bring a different perspective for the readers.

So, I proudly present my first piece, “Ins and Outs: Is buyshifting the future of television?” which is coming in two parts.  It’s fun to see a whole discussion in the comments pop up in just a few short hours!  I hope you enjoy it, an if you have any topics you’d like to hear me write about, drop me a note or comment here.  The column is “Ins and Outs” and the focus is the cross-section of entertainment and technology.

Guitar Hero 2 marketers should hire Ben

Posted on by

If you don’t know Ben, or that unbelievably good 8-year-old Guitar Hero 2 player (as I like to call him), watch this video (or view his channel and watch them all):

Now I’ve improved my skills since the last time I tried playing, but just watching him play gives me some kind of stomach pain.  I recall kicking some C64 butt at around that age, but this is some savant-level stuff.  Check out this interview with Ben for more about him and his l33t gaming skills.

There’s a lot of blog gossip coverage today about YouTube paying highly watched users (I recommend: YouTube blog, Shelly Palmer, Om Malik, TechCrunch, Andy Beal), and I agree with Om’s comment:

Whichever way you look at it, this is a good development for content creators who are looking to turn a labor of love into a full time gig.

In fact, this whole concept mirrors what I blogged about yesterday, where the true empowerment of the video marketplace is dictated solely by content creators and advertisers/sponsors. 

SNC14148 guitar hero 2 truckRedOctane, the company who produces Guitar Hero 2, generally does a great job promoting the game. Trucks roll around the country for people to try it out, and the game is consistently sold out in Best Buy and other retailers.  Cowbell Hero is an instant classic, and other fan-based activities abound across the net.

If I were in RedOctane’s marketing group, I’d be in touch with Ben and his family.  We’re only a few weeks away before school’s out for summer, and I’d jump on the opportunity to spend a week videoing the kid, and pay him handsomely for some fun commercials.  I’d top it off with a “can you beat Ben?” contest at the end of the summer (after camp, but before school starts up again).

When will the FCC give up on content regulation?

Posted on by

I can’t think of any federal organization that has less fans than the FCC.  The FAA seems to do a pretty solid job.  The FTC could probably crack down on a few more tech monopolies out there.  The SEC should ease a few restrictions that so heavily discourage IPOs today. But those are minor annoyances compared to the FCC. The FCC has this weird dual-role, in which one half is trying to make sure lots of new technologies don’t make a mess out in the real world, and the other half is trying to figure out if its okay if I say “peepee” on television.

In it’s first role, I think it seems to do a bang-up job, but I’m not a spectrum engineer or anything like that, so I could be wrong.  But when I see stories such as “FCC Chairman Martin to Telcos: No Blocking Iowa Calls” (updated) “FCC approves plan for major wireless spectrum auction: Spectrum in 700MHz band to have greater range for broadband” I have to say, it sounds good to me!  After all, my microwave works, my cell phones work, my wifi works – this whole spectrum thing seems like it’s being managed well.  And guess what, it’s exactly this purpose wherein the roots of the FCC lie:

Before the commission was established, radio was regulated by the Commerce Department under Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover. Naturally, chaos reigned. The biggest problem was that hundreds of stations were trying to broadcast on only two frequencies, a situation that detracted from listening enjoyment.

But then there’s the other FCC, the one that sounds a whole lot like an uninformed yokel, who arbitrarily fines DJ’s, declares that the word “Dick” better mean “Richard”, and generally acts like a bully only barely overshadowed by Homeland Security (but at least those guys are trying to take actions with the intent to save lives).  On almost a daily basis, I see through my variety of feeds and newsletters articles discussing how the FCC is playing in territory that should clearly be outside their “turf”.  Two recent examples:

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who heads the House Commerce Committee, said at an occasionally rancorous subcommittee meeting Wednesday that “the FCC is not a legislative body – that role resides here in this room with the people’s elected representatives.” – source

Congress could regulate violence on cable, satellite and broadcast television without violating the First Amendment, according to the Federal Communications Commission. – source

Now whether or not I side with political correctness or moral majority or whatever term you prefer is wholely irrelevant.  Fundamentally, the FCC plays a game in which they redefine the rules as it suits their purpose.  But changes are afoot, changes that will render this part of the FCC near-useless in the coming years.  The good old Interweb is here to lay a bit of a smackdown on the FCC.  And the nice thing about Interwebbing is, it tends to do a lot more self-policing, with a lot better checks and balances.

The interesting part is the “checks” are literally checks – when it comes to IP video, of whatever nature, the dollar is almighty.  Put simply: streaming video costs money.  It costs money to create, produce, edit, and most importantly – stream.  If you cannot make enough money to cover your bandwidth costs, you will sooner or later be off the “air”.  Which is where our “balances” come in, and we call them advertisers (sponsors works too).  Mathew Ingram recently wrote (he wrote a second piece on a related topic that’s also a good read):

What kinds of advertisers will YouTube be able to attract? Critics such as Mark Cuban have argued that most advertisers won’t want to be associated with the kind of content that’s on the site, whereas Joost is much more like regular TV.

Cuban is dead-right on this topic.  But after “most” comes “some” and those some advertisers that are left will want to be associated with YouTube content.  That’s how they exercise their power – they write the checks for the content they like.  Don’t like it? No checks.  Fair and balanced at its finest.

Thanks to the FCC, television has its seven deadly words.  Thanks to YouTube, ustream, PodTech, PodShow, Apple, Fraunhoffer, MPEG-LA, and, as Time magazine so ______ put it, YOU, the Internet has no deadly words.  Go ahead, do a podcast, say “peepee” a lot.  If you get enough advertisers, someone might ask you to stop saying it one day, as that is their option.  And you are fully empowered to make your own decision.  As are the listeners or viewers.  As it should be, no unelected, unbounded, outdated, and out-of-touch government body needed.

Connect at Connections?

Posted on by

I’m heading down to (ugh) Santa Clara today to check out the annual Connections Conference, a show centered around the digital/connected home.  I like the show, and even spoke at it a few years back (this whole “independent consultant thing” certainly seems to diminish the speaking opps).  I’m curious to see the next wave of “the future of the digital home” visionaries strut their stuff.  After all, this is the year of the digital home, right?  Or was that last year?  Or was that 2002?  Or 1999?

Redefining the Networking Lunch

Posted on by

If you’ve lived in the Bay Area as long as I have, you most certainly remember the “dot-com era” (which is definitely a funny term considering it lasted about 18 months, whereas a more typical era, such the Victorian Era, spanned about 70 years).  In those times, gobs of money was spent on startups with visions of grandeur.  Delusional visions, but visions nonetheless.

Then things got bad.  And darkness covered the land.  Entrepreneurs sought out MBAs while Web producers took sales gigs where they had to gain some tangible work experience if they wanted to ever be employed again. 

But now, things are good again.  The flow of money from the VCs to the entrepreneur is finally more than a trickle, and new companies seem to pop up virtually every day.  And again, visions of grandeur, many inspired by a recently-very-wealthy-after-working-for-about-16-months Chad Hurley (now rumored to buying disposable yachts).  This time, it’s not dot-com, it’s Web 2.0.

During dot-com, we had crazy launch parties catered by the fanciest restaurants in San Francisco, with huge giveaways and gift bags, costing obscene amounts of money.  In Web 2.0, we get some non-open bar parties and the occasional free lunch.  NETGEAR, where I’m still having fun with my guest blogging stint, has teamed up with the organizers of Lunch 2.0 to have a cool event at the end of the month.  The deets:

Location: Netgear, Inc.
Address: 4500 Great America Pkwy, Santa Clara, CA 95054
Date: Wed, May 30th 2007
Time: 12:00 – 1:30 pm

Some highlights:

  • Tour the company’s Digital Lifestyle House (which I’ve seen and video’d for the blog, but is apparently getting a touchup right now)
  • Enter a raffle to win a “Smart Network makeover”
  • Meet some key folks from the NETGEAR team (including their wonderful guest blogger!)
  • Opportunity to get video interviewed by the PodTech people

Oh, and did I mention there’d be barbecue?

I coulda been a Nielsen home

Posted on by

I was reading Davis Freeberg’s article on DVR stats from Nielsen, and it jogged a memory I meant to blog about last month.  A few weeks back a guy knocked on my door, informed my wife and I we had the option to become Nielsen households.  Basically, we’d get another set-top box to install, and have to push a button (or two) every 45 minutes while watching TV.  Seems easy enough, but frankly I just didn’t want to deal with the hassle right now.

Maybe if Arrested Development were still on I’d care more, but my favorite shows (Heroes, The Office) are doing smashingly well.  Further, we’re about to get back on to the Netflix bandwagon, so my “real TV” hours are diminishing rapidly anyway.

The weird part is if accepted, I wasn’t supposed to tell anyone.  I wonder what my guests would’ve thought?

Guess I'm not rushing out for an Xbox 360 Elite

Posted on by

I’ve only had my Xbox 360 for three weeks, but I’ve wondered if the upgrade to the new unit would be worth it.  Ryan at Engadget did the xboxo y xboxo today, and it sounds like there’s not that much to be gained by bumping to the Elite.  Here’s his final thoughts on the topic:

Basically, unless you are seriously eagle-eyed, have a massive friggin screen, or for whatever reason need to use HDMI because you’re all out of component inputs, your investment in the first-gen Xbox 360 is probably safe. Do yourself a favor, just buy that 120GB drive if you need the space, the HDMI really just doesn’t justify replacing your whole console for a new $480 unit.

While the improvements seem barely marginal at present, I wonder if the next batch of games for the 360 will take advantage of the improved resolution.  The fundamental problem here is this: 1080i and 1080p video games might actually look the same unless you have a truly huge screen.  Remember, they both have the same pixel count, so the only difference is frame rate, and you aren’t going to be able to see the difference without a BIG screen.  I still think CNET’s piece from 2005 is the best-written article on the topic of 1080i vs 1080p. 

With my 32″ Olevia 720p/1080i display, I’d be surprised if there’s any real need for the “better” unit.  Besides, I can’t possibly rock any harder than I already do at GH2, so what’s the point?

Are Marketeers Spinning Viral Video Stats?

Posted on by

I really like the eMarketer.com newsletter, it’s one of the few that I receive that I read every day.  It’s well formatted, has bite-sized info, presents useful and relevant stats, and gets most of what I want to see above the fold. One of today’s articles was lauding the success of viral video, but unlike typical articles from them, I felt this contains some questionable statistics.  Let’s start with a few quotes:

Next to ‘cool microsites’ and games, viral video is hot.

Video clips got generally good reviews from marketers, with about three in 10 saying they yielded great results, and just 13% admitting their results were dismal.

If you see the fine print, n=2914 “experienced viral marketers”.  At 30% we have about 1000 viral videos of which their marketeers claim “great success.”

I’m either living in a hole or I have a different definition of the adjective great.  Why do I say this?  Well, how about you count the number of “viral videos” you’ve seen that you’d attribute to companies.  Remember, if it’s in this category it cannot include a commercial that aired on TV, nor can it be a clip like “Lazy Sunday”.  I am surprised if anyone’s list exceeds their count of fingers + toes.

My hunch, and I’m up to hear a counterargument on this, is that the surveyed marketeers are answering this way because it is trendy.  Survey bias exists fairly commonly in most segments, but even more so in a field dominated by follow-the-leader activities.  And marketing folks are especially predisposed to report on the success of their activities.  This is especially interesting in light of…

But what are the chances of a video actually going viral? According to an Online Publishers Association (OPA) survey, not that high.

Now I’d prefer if this data was less than a year old, as it was in February 2006 when YouTube’s activities began spiking (again, thanks to Lazy Sunday – I sure hope Chad sent a big bagfull of money to Andy Samberg).  My hunch is there’s a lot more forwarding going on than there used to be.  Of course, there’s a lot more Portland ice storms and people getting haircuts than there are commercially-driven “great success” viral videos.

Is Technology Killing the English Language?

Posted on by

How r u?  U OK?

Somewhere back in the 90s one of the versions of MS Word included a built-in spellchecker that finally, actually, really worked.  While typing, any misunderstood word gets instantly highlighted, and better yet, some clear tpyos even get automatically corrected.  There was being grammar checker too, but it not working as good, unless, of course, you write a “fractured sentence” (an error description that is truly on a par with PC Load Letter).

And once God Microsoft gave us spellcheck, all became better.  Peace and prosperity ruled the land.  And we started getting lazy.  Very lazy.  Just as the spreadsheet killed the need for learning math, spellcheck apparently killed the need for learning how to spell.  Both of these are a shame in my eyes, as I enjoy both activities, and as a very slightly (ok fine) somewhat geeky kid, I really excelled at both back in my day. 

With the surge of popularity of both instant messaging and online chat rooms in the later 90s, another blow to English arose.  In IM-land you can have a quick conversation about anything, and nobody’s paying attention to a little typo hree or tehre.  You’d have to really utterly manggle (sp?) a word for your conversation partner to say anything, and that assumes they recognized the mistake.  With IM, some form of “Quickie” English began to emerge, where phrases like LOL, LMAO, IMHO, BRB, gained a lot of popularity.

Quickie English gets even better (or is that worse?) when it comes to texting.  When texting, not only aren’t you getting feedback on a mispelt word, thanks to technology like T9 you might accidentally insert the wrong word into your sentence. But don’t worry, it’s just a text, who cares, right?  A recent study shows all this Quickie English might be causing some problems to Old Fashioned Written English.

I’m a fairly traditional person, but I am also one to know languages evolve over time.  For example, the word “connection” was spelled “connexion” through the first half of the 20th century.  Read books authored in the 18th or 19th century (sorry, e-books and audio-books on your iPod are not acceptable substitutes for this exercise), you’ll find all kinds of minor variations on common words.  Should the next edition of Webster’s include definitions for R, U, and LOL?  If these “words” are here to stay, then yes, language should evolve.  It must.

Update: I really wanted to find a way to link to this post, one of the funniest things I’ve read in a long long time, but I just couldn’t find a way to fit it in context.  But it does fit, somehow.  So, call it a non-sequitur, and just accept “cheezburger” into your spell-check dictionary, ok?

The Unofficial Official Heroes Drinking Game (v2)

Posted on by

UPDATED: now that we are on the home stretch of the “last 5” I’ve decided to give this a little revision. Some of the activities aren’t really relevant if you are keeping up with the series, but I’ll leave them in there for “classic” episodes.  Newly added items are in italics.

Heroes is my favorite show on TV right now (with Arrested Development reruns as a second runner-up).  I think the writing is overall very good (some cheesiness here and there), ditto on the acting (ditto), and utterly enjoy the storyline.  Everything about it is, in my opinion, fun to watch.  I also like NBC’s embracement of the Internet for the show (which is apparently poised to grow tomorrow) which includes:

Even though there are a couple already (here and here), I decided none of them really addressed all the magic of the show.  So, here’s my Official Heroes Drinking Game (which is, of course, unofficial, other than by my own standards).  Incidentally, I’ve tried to make this fairly spoiler-free for those of you who are waiting to watch the season via Netflix (which is ridiculous because of the free streaming from NBC, but, whatever).  Also, I’m using character names only, if you aren’t familiar with them all, here’s a list of all characters (warning, link may contain spoilers).

Take ONE drink when…

  • Niki sees her reflection wink back at her
  • Niki looks all panic-stricken (reserve yourself to no more than twice per episode)
  • Nathan talks down to Peter
  • Simone adds utterly no value to a scene
  • Hiro uses a lot of comical gestures and sound effects to complement his English
  • Claire breaks a bone (or vital organ) in a way that makes you a bit squeamish
  • Matt gets really confused about his power
  • Ando makes a comment regarding giving up or going home
  • Anyone’s eyes get all glossed over
  • Mr. Bennet takes off his glasses, wipes them (or his brow), then puts them back on
  • Mohinder makes a reference to something being impossible, stupid, crazy, etc
  • Someone’s head gets cut open
  • The Haitian guy shows up, and the episode fades to commercial within 5 seconds
  • Two Heroes’ paths cross coincidentally
  • A dead person comes back to life.  Drink again if it is revealed that that formerly dead person is actually still dead
  • Claude snarls menacingly
  • Ted gets all sweaty (take a second drink if he subsequently doesn’t even use his power)
  • NBC shows a spoiler during a commercial break of another show, and you aren’t able to grab your remote and pause/mute/change the channel in time.  Drink again if you curse the network out loud as a result.
  • Sylar fools someone and you sit there yelling at the screen “he’s the bad guy, he’s the bad guy!”
  • You get a glimpse of one of Isaac’s paintings and it shows something extra-cool (this is another ‘subjective’ ones)
  • Linderman shows signs that he’s probably a grade-A crazy

Take TWO drinks when…

  • Hiro raises his arms to the sky in an expression of joy
  • Claire runs unnecessarily
  • D.L. doesn’t use his ability, but clearly could/should
  • A Hero uses their power in a way that makes you clap, cheer, or get otherwise giddy
  • Peter figures anything important out
  • Sylar shows how much of a badass he is
  • A “good” Hero turns out to be “bad” (and vice versa)
  • Thompson makes it through an entire scene smiling
  • Someone should really just give Candice a punch, because it would really solve some problems, but yet doesn’t

  • Hana gets more than 3 minutes of screen time in an episode

Chug it when…

  • They find the sword
  • The writers use Mohinder’s dad (Dr. Suresh) to explain a key plotline
  • A character is revealed to be a Hero and it was a genuine surprise (judgment call, but I trust ya)
  • A major character gets killed
  • NBC comes up with a key catchphrase to get new viewers involved
  • Any Hero dons a spandex uniform (and you must finish all the drinks around if that uniform sports a big X in the middle)
  • Someone (not you, of course) radically underestimates Sylar
  • An actor who is/was famous on another geeky TV series (or movie) makes a guest appearance
  • Two heroes make out.  Chug it again if it turns out many episodes later they’re somehow related.
  • The writers introduce a Hero with a very average power, such as “slightly longer limbs than normal people” or “eerily aware of the exact humidity of the local region” or “can summon and control all the nearby butterflies”

Enjoy.  If I’ve missed anything, add it as a comment below!  Please enjoy Heroes responsibly (a.k.a. watch every episode, try to skip the “next week on Heroes” bit). Also, congrats to the producers, writers, crew, etc for a second season renewal already!

Two simple yet highly addictive games

Posted on by

JT guitar hero 2 - playingSo I’ve had an Xbox 360 for a couple of weeks now, and it’s quite awesome, I must say.  Guitar Hero 2 is great (I’ve gotten a litte better since my first foray), both my wife and I are hooked on Viva Pinata.  But neither is anywhere near as addictive as two simple PC games I’ve recently stumbled upon (do I owe eBay some money for saying those words together?).

The first, thanks to Michael Gartenberg, is Peggle.  Peggle is a cross between Kaboom and traditional pachinko.  You have virtually no control over the action during the game, yet it’s insanely addictive.  I actually coughed up the $19.99 to get the registered version after tearing through the demo (which was fairly comprehensive, I must add).  I’ve still got a lot of the “challenges” left to go, but I’m hoping for an expansion pack or a Peggle 2 in a few months.  I’ve got another Andrew Jackson ready for PopCap Games when it does…

Second up, which I just found two days ago, is called Desktop Tower Defense.  It’s completely free, as they show completely unobtrusive ads during gameplay.  It’s from Kongregate, who claims to have 572 different games available to play, all free.  I tried a few others, some are fun, some aren’t, but DTD has me obsessed right now.  It’s easy to learn, but takes a lifetime to master.