Google: Helping Us Get That Song Out of Our Head Since '09

In quick Google news, the search giant unveiled on its blog today how users will be able to search for music faster and easier. Through this new feature, you'll be able to search for a song by just typing in a few lyrics, which as you all know, is incredibly useful in our daily lives (I'm not even being all that sarcastic. I probably need to do this 3 or 4 times a week). Once you've found the song or artist you've been looking for, Google will also recommend legal sites where you can download or stream the music you've search for. Watch the video below to see it in action or check it out here to discover music on your own.



Personally, I love this new feature and I foresee using it in excess. But I have to wonder: if the iPod represented a major shift in the way we listen to music, what does this type of snippet searching say about trends in music? Are we heading towards a future where the album is obsolete because people simply do not listen to one full length album at a time? Maybe artists will only release singles to accommodate listener's pick 'n' choose preferences. The future is full of maybes.

You Know What Would Be Nice? Not Paying For Cell Phone Service.

Despite the plethora of ways we can communicate with one another over the internet, we all still seem to be very attached to our cell phones (for now anyway). As we leave landlines behind we have begun to look for convenient and cheap ways to talk to one another. Even though we have changing attitudes about phone service, many of us are not making the switch to ditch our cell phones all together for internet based phone service largely because we feel it is not convenient enough or because we don't know enough about it.

Yesterday, Google announced improvements to their Google Voice service that would allow callers to keep their existing phone number, make conference calls, send SMS via email in addition to many other features. If Google Voice isn't enough, iNum announced today that it will be bringing HD voice calling to Skype. iNum is a global internet calling service that allows callers to easily make calls to and from all over the world. This news probably means that the "it's poor quality sound" reason why you don't save money by making your calls online, won't be a legitimate reason for much longer.



I have to admit I am incredibly cheap. I hate paying my phone bill. I've been able to stop paying for cable and I feel great about that, but I hesitate to ditch my cell phone. And for what? So that I can pay 55 bucks a month to worry about going over my minutes and text allowance? Or is it just because not enough people would be willing to ditch their phones with me? Well, fuck the phone companies! To hell with them! There is obviously no reason why I should be paying for their overpriced service anymore. Yeah, I'm getting rid of my phone... tomorrow. Or the next day. I promise.

Run For the Hills! Apple's Tablet is Coming!

The rumor mill has been working overtime today as news of the long-hoped-for Apple tablet appears to be surfacing. Some news sites are picking up the story that Bill Keller of the New York Times let the cat out of the bag during a speech where he mentioned wanting to deliver New York Times exclusives to the Apple Slate. Gizmodo even posted the rumor that 400,000 of these tablets could ship by April 2010.



Now, if we are following the chronology of science fiction movies the Apple tablet falls somewhere between laptops and small screens implanted in our forearms. Basically, it doesn't matter whether or not these particular rumors are true, because this technology is coming whether we like it or not. For me, thinking about the impending Apple tablet reminds of those ridiculous technology scenes in Quantum of Solace. It's something that I can laugh at as preposterous now, but I won't be laughing when the technology really does arrive and I have to learn to adapt to it.

Incredibly Exciting Developments Are Afoot

Remember when I said email was dead? Hehe, about that. The internet's heart skipped a beat recently with news of Mozilla's Raindrop and Google Wave. Raindrop is in the early stages of development and is designed to be the next generation in email. The Next Web's Martin Bryant said that, "Raindrop is based on the idea that email isn’t the only thing people need to check regularly. Many people now have multiple email addresses, Twitter accounts, a Facebook account, IM accounts and more all vying for their attention." Check out Mozilla's site to see news about Raindrop and a cool video about the service.


If you've been on Twitter recently you've probably noticed that Google Wave has been a popular trending topic over the last week. Google Wave is another in development service that is looking to drastically change email to better reflect how important multimedia has become in the way we communicate. To see Google Wave in action you must, must watch this:



Let's not even pretend Google Wave won't be awesome, cause it most definitely will (I requested an invite but haven't gotten one, anyone out there already doing the Wave?).

In a previous post about the death of email, I expressed my concerns about how the changes in the way we communicate are becoming less and less personal. But, as I follow the Google Wave and Raindrop developments closely and with more anticipation, I feel like these services will only benefit us and help us to better communicate with one another. As the internet and our interests become more fragmented, services like Raindrop and Google Wave will have a profound effect on our ability to bring all of the services we use together and enable us to communicate with our friends and contacts easier.

Enough speculation. It'll be months before any of us will be able to tell if Google wave and Raindrop are indeed the future of communication or just another giant, internet related time suck.

A Thousand Flowers Are Blooming For Twitter

I told you there would be more Twitter news to come! Twitter scored two deals yesterday with Microsoft and Google that lets both companies utilize Tweets in their search engines. Microsoft's Bing has already begun to use the feature (ugh, its ugly though don't you think?) while Google's is still forthcoming (and probably much nicer to look at).

This is good news for Twitter because it is opening up the door for revenue streams. Not only has Twitter been paid by Google and Microsoft for their tweets, but both companies are likely to start putting ads up on their Twitter search service is the near future, which would mean Twitter might see some advertising revenue sooner than previously imagined.

In addition to being good news for Twitter, it's good news for us as search engine users. For those not using Twitter and not familiar with it, they will be able to see informative tweets through Google or Bing (which will probably drive a lot of new users to Twitter) that they might otherwise not have checked out. Not only that, but with both Microsoft and Google (as well as others) working on ways to sort and search for great tweets amid the constant stream, it is hopeful that a really inventive and helpful service will be developed soon.

I guess the one big downside to all this is that we are one step closer to having chips put in our brains that constantly update us about every possible thing going on in the world--which is an inevitable bummer. Google and Microsoft might succeed at filtering this constant stream of news, but that still doesn't mean there isn't too much of it out there to begin with.

Foursquare

When I lay awake at night, it is usually because I'm thinking about the future of social networking. Now that I have discovered Foursquare I can rest easy knowing that the future is a competitive bar hopping game users play with their acquaintances (I should've guessed). Foursquare is a relatively new social networking site that asks the question "where are you?" rather than, "what are you doing?". Foursquare has some buzz surrounding it as well as financial backers that include Kevin Rose (Digg) and Jack Dorsey (co-founder of Twitter) to name only a few. Similarly to Twitter, Foursquare is building upon this buzz in an effort to attract financiers and encourage people to try out the service. Unlike Twitter, Foursquare has some very promising revenue possibilities that include sponsoring from different stores like coffe shops or bars (locations where foursquarers like to meet up with friends).

Despite the fact that the premise of Foursquare seems to limit its audience to urbanites, and that it needs to attract many more users, I think Foursquare could easily become incredibly popular (at least within cities like New York) and start generating revenue withing the next few years. Foursquare seems to be expanding upon the idea of Twitter, where users can let anyone know what they are doing wherever they are doing it, and focusing that information in a way that encourages ACTUAL SOCIAL INTERACTION (you might be too young to remember this). Instead of tweeting "I just drank one tasty cup of coffee. Be jealous" I can use Foursquare to let everyone I'm connected with know "I'm at Starbucks in Union Square. Come chill with me." This is a major difference, people. Foursquare is indeed the future of social networking because it is utitilizing the foundations of networking that sites like Facebook have developed and the easily accesible quick information Twitter has brought to the table to encourage users to bring these elements together and utilize them in a way that returns the "social" aspect of networking back to its interpersonal home.

I really hope that Foursquare can begin to garner more users (so that there are people using the service that I actually know) because I can see this service as not only becoming really popular, but incredibly useful as well. Especially for those of us who sometimes have nothing really to do and no one to hang out with (not me though because I'm super popular and cool and just don't even worry about it). I know that technology will one day rise up and kill us all, but I think I'm starting to like some of these new fangled techno driven ways of communicating.

E-Reader News Round-Up

The transition to digital books is shaping up to be one of my favorite topics on this blog. The reason why I have been focusing quite a bit on it is because, despite my own qualms about digital books, the e-reader is about to be a really big deal, really soon. The amount of news stories alone about developments in this technology indicates that we are on the precipice of e-reader ubiquity.

Firstly, Google announced today that it will launch Google Editions in the first half of next year. Readers will initially be able to buy half a million e-books from the site as well as hosted books from other retailers. Because it is Google (and because of my preference for Google products) I look forward to seeing a user friendly website devoid of any e-reader format bias.

Amazon has announced a price drop for the Kindle, down to $259. But the bigger news is that the latest version of the Kindle (available on October 19th) will be available to customers in over 100 country and have access to wireless.

Pictures of bookstore giant Barnes and Noble's e-reader are now up online. B&N have been working on their design for a few years now but it is possible that the wait might be worth it. "The layout will feature a black and white e-ink screen like the Kindle has—and a multitouch display like an iPhone underneath." In a kind of bizarre publicity twist Barnes and Noble will be launching the e-reader/ "major event" at the Chelsea Piers next Tuesday. I guess we shall wait and see how momentous this event really is.

Unlike Amazon and Google, who make their money online, Barnes and Noble has made a large amount of their money in-store. Is B&N ahead of the curve by trying to adapt to digital consumers? Will a successful e-reader keep their business alive after all of their retail stores have died off? Perhaps. One thing is for sure: it'll be a lot harder to get readers to pay 25 bucks for a digital book like they would have for a hard copy. Not only that but, Amazon, Google, and Barnes and Noble will have to compete not just with one another, but with piracy as well.

Personally, after reading so much about e-readers... they are starting to grow on me. If they get to the point where they have color, touch screens, connect to the internet, and get to around $100-150 I'd fork over the cash for that. Anyone else thinking they could go for one of these in the future?

The Polaroid Strikes Back

It was only a short while ago, when the world learned that the Polaroid camera business had become unsustainable and would be shutting down its business forever. The days of waiting for a picture to develop were truly over.

Apparently our prayers to the Lord On High have been answered, because Polaroid is poised for a come back. In an unexpected twist, it appears as though nostalgia has won out over technological superiority and the modern requirement of being able to put your photos up on Facebook. As Business Week reports, "Polaroid plans to cater to the nostalgia for a technologically less fettered era." Hey, I think Polaroid pictures are as neat-o as the next guy, but I'm not sure nostalgia can carry a business.

Unlike most of the other stories I have been commenting on, this development doesn't mark a transition from old to new in the media world. In fact, it's quite the opposite. But that's what makes it so fascinating to me. What brands or media will American consumers choose to hang on to out of nostalgia, despite the presence of something newer, better, and shinier? Why is Verizon so sure landline phones are dead, while Polaroid thinks that consumers might wanna give their cameras another go?

To be honest, I don't think a Polaroid camera revival is necessary or even a worthwhile product to spend your money on, but I genuinely appreciate the value of nostalgia. Because it is out of nostalgia for the media we are saying goodbye to that I write this blog. The times may be-a-changin', but it's good to know that there is still some amount of nostalgia rather than just technological innovation and convenience that has an impact on the media we consume.

Communication is a Fickle Friend

Gather round kids! I have a story to tell ya. I remember a time when I used to keep in touch with friends over an old fashioned method called email! And my messages would be paragraphs long, not sentences! Those were the days...

I'm only half kidding about my fond remembrances, because in reality the way we communicate has changed drastically in only a few short years. I haven't sent an email to a friend in probably three years. With Facebook, Twitter, Google Chat, and texting there really isn't much need to communicate through a format that is better suited for a longer conversation. Who has the time? This Wall Street Journal article discusses the end of the email era and points us in the direction of where the future of communication is going.

In a not surprising nutshell, it seems that we are heading down a road filled with briefer and briefer bursts of communication. In addition to this (considerably less formal) communication style, our way of getting in contact with one another also involves being able to take in a snapshot of a person's life at any given moment. Apparently email was too impersonal, cause with that service how could you tell what your friend's new favorite bands are or what she's planning on doing this evening? You couldn't! It was anarchy! With Facebook and Twitter we can know almost every mundane detail about a person, whereas email usually just got to the point.

How strange is it that email now seems to be a long forgotten method of getting in touch with someone? With the rapid pace at which technology has developed it seems as though email has become the new letter. It might just be because I'm turning 20 next week, but I really feel fucking old.

Should We Ditch the Comforts of TV? Hells, Yeah!

I watch less and less TV these days, but with more purpose. That is to say I no longer put the television on just so see what is on, but instead have a handful of shows that I make sure to fit into my schedule each week. In our increasingly scattered and hectic lives this is a common trend, no? So, as TV watching habits change I have to wonder: why do so many of us still choose to pay for cable?

There is a great article on Gizmodo today about just how easy it is to live without cable or satellite TV. Sean Fallon offers up a variety of solutions from websites: network websites, hulu.com or watch instantly on Netflix; affordable DVD renting (Netflix, Blockbuster); and hardware if you want to get your internet TV back onto your flat screen: Apple TV, Vudu, or Roku. If more and more people decide to ditch cable TV--like they have with landline phones-- perhaps the trend could put enough financial pressure on cable and satellite companies that they might finally be willing to offer some form of a la carte television. But, that's probably a lot of wishful thinking on my part...

This article made me rethink the position we as consumers find ourselves in. I have felt that due to the oligopolistic nature of the cable TV industry, there would never be enough competition to drive down prices and give the paying customers what they really want. If it isn't a criminal lack of competition within the industry how else would you explain why there still remains no a la carte system in place? But now, thanks mostly to the internet, there are alternative options available to us. My hope is that consumers will be able to break free from their cable service providers, pursue these other options, and create real competition for the industry. Who's with me?!

Look At This Awesome Marketing Tool! Er, I Mean App!

Apps appear to be one of the major selling points for the iPhone. They offer users useful (or trivial) content that can satisfy a wide variety of interests:



Apps are also advertisements that suckers pay for.

New York Times writer Roy Furchgott explains, "Behind the land rush to apps is a belief that they may be some of the cleverest advertising devised. They are, after all, advertisements that people voluntarily choose to watch and share with friends." This is the kind of thing that has turned me into a tin foil hat-wearing recluse. Apps go far beyond--the already pretty scary--realm of product placement because with apps the advertisement has become the content. So is this one of the signs that the apocalypse is upon us and that we are on the brink of becoming mindless drones? Cause, not to sound to alarmist here, but I'm pretty sure we just reached a point where we are willingly paying to play the Pizza Hut app game while we wait for our order to arrive. My tin foil hat just burst into flames.

E-Books, Piracy, Publishers & You

As the popularity of e-books grows, pirated copies will become an increasingly larger problem for publishers. New York Times writer, Randal Stross asks "Will Books Be Napsterized?"; unfortunately for the publishing industry it isn't really a question of will but of how. Stross predicts that the publishers will struggle with piracy as readers make the transition to e-books. However, I see a big difference between the two. Napster and other forms of music piracy became popular before the music industry had caught up with how to sell MP3 players and music to consumers. With e-books, it seems that the publishing industry and technology are becoming the driving force behind the transition to reading books digitally. My question is: is it possible that this difference will have an effect on whether or not consumers will pirate books?

Despite my belief that people will always choose free over paying (regardless of legality) I believe that the publishing industry is in the position to potentially curb readers from pirating. Because e-books are so new and the publishers are at the forefront of selling this technololgy to consumers, I think they have the power to quickly establish a paying culture with e-books. By offering customization, add-ons, apps, and low prices sellers of e-books could quickly establish quality differences between purchased and pirated e-books. No telling how this will all turn out, but I'm hoping that the threat of piracy and the lessons learned from the music industry will force publishers to give readers the best deal possible.

Hmm, Blockbuster News? Okay.

After hearing reports about rental giant Blockbuster's uncertain future, I thought the company had only a few real options: scale down and maybe find a niche market to cater to or continue to try and compete with Netflix and fail. It turns out Blockbuster's last stand to remain relevant and vital in the movie rental business will take place on our cell phones.

The chain has plans to begin offering movies and possibly TV shows on Motorola phones. With the availability of some TV content on Verizon phones through their V Cast service and the fact that iPhones have made watching video content on a cell phone easier and more enjoyable than ever before, Blockbuster's expansion into the territory of mobile phones seems like a natural progression. But Blockbuster's success in this venture rests not on whether consumers want to watch movies and TV on their phones, but whether or not they will pay for the service. And I seriously doubt that they will.

The fact is, those in search of video content have gotten pretty good at finding it for free. There is Hulu, YouTube, network websites, as well as a plethora of illegal streaming or file sharing websites (you know the ones). Does Blockbuster think that after having perfected the art of finding free movies and TV on the internet that consumers are now going to pay just to be able to watch a higher quality verison of Transformers on their small cell phone screen? Seems unlikely. However, I'm sure there is a segment of the population who feel the need to get digital content legally (but I kinda thought they were already using iTunes to download movies and TV shows...).

Time will tell whether or not Blockbuster's cell phone movie rental plan will be successful (it still seems unlikely that it will return them to a position of leadership in the rental industry), but can I say that I think watching movies on cell phones is really, really silly? I know it is 2009 and we have turned into fast-paced, on the go kinda people; but I just refuse to believe that watching The Office on a 3.5 inch screen on my subway ride is an enjoyable viewing experience. I know, I know, this is the future and I must comply with getting all of my entertainment in mini version. Resistance is futile and all that. But does anyone else have similar apprehensions about this or am I the only one just using my cell phone for communication purposes only?