Scott is a developer who has worked on projects of varying sizes, including all of the PLuGHiTz Corporation properties. He is also known in the gaming world for his time supporting the DDR community, through DDRLover and hosting tournaments throughout the Tampa Bar Area. Currently, when he is not working on software projects or hosting F5 Live: Refreshing Technology, Scott can often be found returning to his high school days working with the Foundation for Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST), mentoring teams and judging engineering notebooks at competitions. He has also helped found a student software learning group, the ASCII Warriors.
There is little doubt that Roku is a leader in the streaming platform space. They offer their own hardware, which adds smart capabilities to standard, or older, televisions. In addition, many television manufacturers build Roku technology directly into their sets. At CES 2017, we saw both TCL and Hitachi introduce Roku-powered televisions. It seems, if you want a good experience with native streaming, Roku is the way to go.
Riding that high, Roku has filed for an Initial Public Offering, or IPO. This means that the company plans to offer stock in the company to the public in hopes of raising some new capital. They are hoping to raise as much as $100 million, listing Class A common stock on the NASDAQ.
The filing revealed some information about the inner workings of the company, something that privately held companies are not required to disclose. First, the company had 15.1 million active accounts at the end of June, and saw 6.7 billion hours of streaming in that first 6 months. In 2016, one-third of all content streamed was on Netflix, and YouTube is its top ad-supported service.
Unfortunately, Roku cannot seem to find profitability. The company is currently running at a deficit, with $244 million in losses. The company also acknowledges that it could be some time before they can return to profitability. The important part of the note, however, is that they have a plan. In particular, the company wants to find a way to generate revenue off of its ad-supported platforms.read more...
If 2016 went down as the year of celebrity deaths, 2017 is going to go down as the year of exposed data. This week, another company exposed customer data to the public - Instagram. The data included users' email addresses and phone numbers, and was exposed because of a flaw in the API, or application programming interface, which is how the Instagram applications receive data.
To retrieve the data, you simply need to use an older version of the mobile app, 8.5.1 from 2016 to be specific, and initiate the password reset operation. If the data is sent through certain proxies, you can read the data going both directions. By asking the server to reset the password of an account, the server responds with the personal information of the username requested.
Once this issue was discovered, it was a fairly obvious next step for someone, or a group, to begin grabbing information from high-profile accounts. That information immediately found its way to the underworld of the internet, being made available for purchase at $10 per account on a site dubbed Doxagram. The Daily Beast received a sample and verified at least some of the data.
Instagram fixed the potentially long-running bug, and released a statement saying,
Our main concern is for the safety and security of our community. At this point, we believe this effort was targeted at high-profile users so, out of an abundance of caution, we are notifying our verified account holders of this issue. As always, we encourage people to be vigilant about the security of their account and exercise caution if they encounter any suspicious activity such as unrecognized incoming calls, texts, and e-mails.
While Instagram claims that no security information was exposed, the timing is definitely unfortunate. Three days prior, the account of Selina Gomez, one of the highest profile accounts, was hacked and nude photos of her ex, Justin Bieber, were posted. It is not clear whether or not this hack was related to the data exposure, but the safe money is on a relationship.
One part of the company's statement sticks out, though: "one or more individuals obtained unlawful access." The question that comes out of this statement is who is legally responsible for the access of the data. If someone leaves a piece of confidential information in a bar and someone else reads it, is it the individual who left it behind, or is it the person who found it who has violated the privacy of the data?
We will discuss the topic of data responsibility, both personal and corporate, on F5 Live: Refreshing Technology Episode 478 this week.read more...
The last 12 months have been littered with retro gaming products. Nintendo released the NES Classic Edition and announced the upcoming Super NES Classic Edition. Sega, with partner AtGames, released the Classic and Flashback Genesis hardware. Even Atari has throwback hardware available.
For the 30th anniversary of Street Fighter II, Capcom and Retrotainment Games have decided to up the ante on throwback products, releasing a fully functional SNES cartridge. The cartridges come in either red or glow-in-the-dark, but the packages are not marked as to which color is in which box. The idea of making a working cartridge for hardware that is decades retired is a fascinating one, and the opposite of what we saw with the Genesis hardware. While Sega made new hardware that plays old games, this is a new cartridge for an old system.
This retro gaming trend is an interesting one, and proves that gaming does not have to focus completely on the graphics. In all of these cases, we are seeing companies release games, hardware or both, that are for technology that runs 8-bit or 16-bit graphics. These were the days when you couldn't spend all of your development time focusing on graphics, which meant you had to build a game that played well and could focus on story - or abandon it completely - dealer's choice.
Maybe, with the proof that a good game can do better than a pretty one, we will start to see good games released again.read more...
While there are a lot of markets in the technology sector where the big companies battle, few are as crowded or as competitive as the battle over digital assistants. Cortana, Siri, Alexa and the aptly named Google Assistant all have their places, with secondary services like Samsung's Bixby looking for a space to play. Cortana rules the computer, Alexa rules the smart speaker, Siri rules mobile and Google Assistant is gaining ground in Android.
Each of the assistants has its place, its focus and its strengths. For example, Cortana's direct integration into products like Microsoft Office and Skype give her abilities that none of the others have. Alexa's direct integration with Amazon's shopping service give her the ability to easily order, or reorder, products directly with your voice.
Wouldn't it be great if, as a regular user of Cortana, you could take advantage of Alexa's purchasing power? Or, as an Alexa user, you could get access to Skype? That was exactly the pitch that Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos pitched to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella in May 2016. At Microsoft's CEO Summit, Bezos suggested that the two companies connect their assistants to improve the lives of customers for both products. Nadella said,
Over the past year, the two companies have worked to put together a communications channel for the two assistants. The two services hope to introduce the ability to ask one another to complete tasks by the end of 2017. The process will not be ideal at first, requiring a command similar to, "Hey Cortana, open Alexa," followed by the command to Alexa, and vice versa. In time, they hope that they will create a way for the assistants to decide which is better suited for a task and route automatically.
As of now, Bezos has not contacted either Apple or Google to see if they are interested in joining the team, but he says he would welcome their participation, saying,
In the Unites States, copyright law is very clear - the creator owns the content and any alterations and redistributions without permission are not legal. It's nearly that black-and-white. There are exceptions, for content like parody or review, which fall under fair use. One thing you cannot do is edit someone else's content to your own liking and resell the content. That is, however, exactly the business model of VidAngel. The company bills itself as a service that allows you to filter out unwanted content from films. For example, you can remove the iconic gold bikini scene from Star Wars, to prevent children from seeing a swimsuit.
A number of organizations believed that this behavior was not only unacceptable but illegal. Those organizations were 20th Century Fox, Disney, Lucasfilm and Warner Brothers, who filed suit against VidAngel, claiming copyright infringement. It doesn't take a legal expert to know that charging money to alter someone else's content is absolutely copyright infringement, but VidAngel disagreed, trying to shield themselves with the Family Movie Act (FMA) from 2005. Unfortunately for the company, the law allows an individual to crack content to remove objectionable content for their own personal use, without saving the altered content. It does not allow for a company to redistribute, without permission, altered versions of content.
This week, the case was closed by the appeals court for the ninth circuit. The court agreed with the content owners, stating that VidAngel had absolutely broken the law while altering the content. The decision said,
That is important because that disqualifies it from being considered a "remix" - a practice that is popular, and more importantly legal, in music, wherein an original piece of music is sufficiently altered as to produce a new, unique piece of music. By removing a few scenes here and there, it does not qualify the end result as new content. The court also said,
As a company that produces and distributes original content, it is good to see the court upholding copyright standards. Content producers spend a lot of time and money to produce a piece exactly as they want. The work that goes into our shows can be immense, and we would not want versions of our content to be distributed, without our permission, in a manner different from how we intended. For example, the editing of an interview could potentially change the context of a conversation, embarrassing our team, or worse, our guest. To do the same to a multi-million dollar movie could produce even bigger issues, both artistically and financially.read more...