Google: benevolent dictator?

With Google’s announcement of OpenSocial and Android to bookend the weekend, it looks like Google’s perceived evilness (at least by me) may have been misplaced.

If you didn’t know, Google announced an open application platform (API) called OpenSocial that will allow web developers to create applications that can work across multiple social networking sites, rather than having to develop one for each network using proprietary standards. Ning and Google-owned Orkut are the first to roll out their applications, called “gadgets.”

The second big announcement is that of an open cell phone platform called Android that may just break the stranglehold that service providers have over consumers. Google has created an operating system and middleware to bring these services to you on any number of phones from big-name companies. The variety of companies involved is the true reason I’m so confident about this platform, since it covers such a wide range.

I also would be surprised if some OpenSocial apps don’t make their way onto compatible handsets in the future.

To use a cringe-inducing marketing term, Google has almost completely saturated the U.S. market. This Week in Tech panelists agreed in episode 120 that true growth exists in developing nations and communities where people’s first experience with the Internet will be on a light, relatively cheap phone.

Imagine that, a plan that makes smart business sense and raises karma.

So, what’s the point of this post? Well, despite Google’s mantra of “we aren’t evil,” some believe they are evil simply because they know your usage habits and can target ads to users based on that data.

This is true. And you shouldn’t be surprised to see location-based advertising popping up on your cell phone if you buy a Google-based phone. But that doesn’t mean Google is evil. They are tracking us just as much as we are tracking them. OpenSocial is the evidence.

Now let’s just see if they can deliver on their promise of greater openness, and not end up being the benefactors of a bloody coup in which we hope to be “feeling lucky” enough to search for our long-lost rights. 🙂

Facebook’s net worth

Yesterday afternoon (PST), Facebook announced an advertising relationship with Microsoft in which Bill Gates’ company purchased an equity stake for $240 million. The “people-friendly” company now owns a 1.6 percent stake in the social network Mark Zuckerberg and friends just threw together.

Let’s do the math.

If 1.6 percent of Facebook is worth $240 million, then one percent equals $150 million. Therefore, the company’s total worth is a whopping $15 billion. This is considerably more than the $1 billion offered by Yahoo in 2006. Of course, Facebook only had 9 million users to MySpace’s “100 million plus” over a year ago. Even Zuckerberg undersold Facebook back then, asking for a paltry $2 billion.

Some analysts are predicting this partnership will grow. “Microsoft will continue to have influence beyond just being an ad platform,” said Gartner analyst Andrew Frank to CNET News.com.

It seems like Zuckerberg really is in it for the long term.

Robots are taking over (prediction 32.0)

Jason Calacanis recently put forth his definition of Web 3.0, in which he adds a layer of “quality” produced by “gifted individuals.”

How one defines a “gifted individual” can prove problematic when making a universal definition like this. Calacanis has tried to position Mahalo as the leader in the Web 3.0 space, but others have suggested something more sinister.

In the march toward technological singularity, Brian Solis believes Web 3.0 is semantic, in which mundane web tasks will be automated by machines and AI.

In other words, Web 3.0 will bring on Singularity 1.0. Philip K. Dick is rolling in his grave.

Walking billboard from your chair

CNET News.com reports that Armani is the latest business to set up a proprietorship in Second Life. The virtual world’s inhabitants can trade virtual goods with virtual currency called Linden dollars, named after the program’s developer, Linden Labs. The company acts as a central bank.

Armani is joining the ranks of other real-life businesses like Reuters and Cisco who have set up shop in Second Life.

Some may be turned off by this apparent waste of money, but the model has worked before. Microsoft has used a proprietary currency in a virtual environment over Xbox Live since November 2005. Gamers can exchange money for MS points (which are conveniently difficult to compute). $1 equals 80 MS points. That means it costs the user 1.25 cents for every point. To make it worse, Microsoft only sells points in bundles. This invariably means you will have points left over after you buy the DLC you really want, encouraging you to buy more.

Second Life is more flexible, however, since it has its own economy which businesses use as a platform for promotion and direct sales to virtual consumers. This gives the businesses a human face, lessening the perceived sleaziness by the newly-infected brand zombies (you and me).

I can understand business’ eagerness to capitalize on this new market. As of this writing, over US$ 986,000 has been spent in a 24-hour period in Second Life. Such transactions have motivated businesses like Armani to pimp their digital wares (and wearers). Pimping is the appropriate word, here, since users are viewed as commodities to big companies looking to cash in on the “viral” craze.

Microsoft’s Master Plan

I received the original Xbox as a gift in May 2002 because of one game: the original “Halo.” Series developer Bungie Studios and its corporate parent Microsoft are receiving flack from Seattle Times columnist Brier Dudley over the final installment’s $10 million ad campaign.

The narrative within the ads features a memorial to the human race established after series protagonist Master Chief is captured in battle by the Covenant alien forces. The end of one ad, titled “Believe,” shows a Covenant Brute holding up Master Chief as a prisoner of war. The camera shows a close-up of a grenade in his hand, then shifts to his visor which shines in a simulated eye wink. The story was written by an advertising agency who had no knowledge about actual game spoilers (so if you think I just ruined it for you, don’t worry). In another ad, a human veteran of the battle tears up when remembering MC’s sacrifice.

EDIT: Here is the believe ad.

The complaint from Dudley is that the protagonist is portrayed as a Christ-like hero in war, and the campaign is a subtle approval of the U.S.’s current operations in Iraq.

Which is just ridiculous. Let’s examine Dudley’s rationale for such a claim.

He argues that the ads draw a parallel between the “Halo” protagonist and Jesus Christ, because the fictional war veteran calls M.C. “the man who gave the world faith” and made humanity “believe again.”

I buy that part. But the Jesus Christ archetype has been emulated in art, literature, and popular culture for years. “The Matrix” did it. “Star Wars” did it. Now “Halo 3” is doing it. In an ad. That the game’s creators didn’t write.

“The ads zoom in on anguished faces of soldiers in a battlefield diorama,” Dudley says.

Is this even noteworthy? When does a battlefield not contain anguished faces?

He also says he doesn’t “think Microsoft is trying to send any subliminal, pro-war message…,” then:

It seems risky for a global company to even lightheartedly link spirituality and military themes during a U.S. war in the Middle East that has outraged much of the world.

If there is no “subliminal…message,” then the basis for “risk” does not exist.

Frank O’Connor, lead writer at Bungie, explains it perfectly in Dudley’s original editorial.

“We are the latest in a long line of people exploring the same themes. It’s just that we didn’t stop doing it because there was a conflict in Iraq; we didn’t stop doing it because there was a war in Bosnia — those things are external to what we’re doing,” he said.

Saving face(book)

Productivity losses are abound at workplaces, and Facebook is a major factor, according to a BBC article.

Unfortunately, their major data source was a study “based on a survey of 3,500 UK companies.” I’m sure such parties don’t have a vested interest in lost productivity. Despite my dripping sarcasm, there is an alternative that the study fails to consider. Maybe letting your employees browse social networking sites while on the job reduces stress and increases productivity.

Ryan Deschamps at The Other Librarian thinks “Facebook could enhance community image and social learning” regarding an Ontario, Canada court decision to ban the site from its libraries all of the city’s publicly-owned computers. He also says that Facebook’s popularity may be the reason it was banned in that case. Singling out sites that make news is a common response from groups who are uneducated and want to get rid of perceived problems quickly.

Perhaps it is more instructive to think about why employees are browsing Facebook on company time. Even within Facebook’s walled garden, employees are not productive.

The BBC quotes Dr. Will Reader, a Sheffield Hallam University researcher, in the UK.

Although the number of friends people have on these sites can be massive, the number of close friends is approximately the same as in the face-to-face real world contact.

iPod touch

Apple announced the iPod Touch today, as well as revamped versions of the previous iPod (now classic) and the iPod Nano.

The Touch is basically the iPhone without the “phone” part. Itouch would have been creepy, so iPod Touch is what we get.

The most interesting news for me is the iTunes Wi-Fi store. Now you can buy and download songs from the store directly from the iPod. No more logging onto the computer just to resync, and this includes syncing podcasts. Browse directly from campus!

The only downside, personally, is the monochrome theme across the portable line. Pure black for the iPhone and iPod Touch, bland gray for Classic and Nano, and brushed silver for Shuffle. I guess I’m a monochromaphobe.

UPDATE: Turns out the line comes in drab pastels, not just gray. I’m still not a fan. Besides, the CodeRED isn’t really red, it’s burgundy. Bad brand implementation Apple! I thought I would never say that, but it’s true.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Do gadgets ruin movies?

The BBC quotes film director Ridley Scott:

We try to do films which are in support of cinema, in a large room with good sound and a big picture. But we’re fighting technology.

Did you hear that Mr. Jobs? The iPhone ruins movies. Instead of traveling down to the local cineplex to watch films, people choose to download them online from their living rooms.

Only then does Joe Six-Pack travel down to the theatre and try to watch the film on his iPhone, while simultaneously texting his friends about the crappy projection, and browsing Rotten Tomatoes for snarky one-liners about the shallowness of summer blockbusters.

If only he would stop cricking his neck to the side when he hears the phone ring…

Powered by ScribeFire.

Changing focus

I have decided to shift focus from film reviews to web 2.0 topics. Technology and online conversation will be at the heart of what I am doing here, with internet news commentary and my thoughts on current trends that are hopeful, troubling, or mixed.
From the traditional heavyweights to the featherweights with heavy-hitting ideas, all corners of the web will be covered here. I hope you enjoy your stay.

Welcome!

This blog will be covering movies and the film industry from the perspective of a media/communications student at the University of Miami in Florida. Hope you enjoy the blog! My first substantive post should be coming tomorrow after I watch the first film from my queue.

Netflix is my savior.

Update: The review WILL be up tomorrow. To tide you over, the film is “M” by Fritz Lang, his first talkie.