Just recently we've talked about YouTube fighting a losing battle in keeping its top spot as the world's go-to video service. Despite recent platform and service enhancements, Google is still losing to the competition like Hitbox, Twitch and DailyMotion. Another company YouTube needs to look out for is Vimeo, a site that's been rapidly growing over the past two years and is gunning for the lead position in all things video. Vimeo further proved its motive this week, when it acquired the Mystery Science Theater 3000 catalog.
MST3K being picked up by Vimeo is cool for a lot of reasons. First, listeners and readers of our content will now we are proudly partnered with Rifftrax, the new endeavor formed by the creators of MST3K. Knowing that 80 episodes of the crew's previous work will be on display for people both familiar and unfamiliar with the series to see is kind of cool. Next, this finally gives people a legal way to view the content. Until this deal, episodes have been trickled to Netflix and Hulu, or you have to pick them up on iTunes, Google Play or Vudu as you wished.
So, how is this all going down? 80 episodes of MST3K are up on Vimeo right now, but not in the way most video content on Vimeo is viewed. Instead, this collection is behind Vimeo's OnDemand service. For $299.99, you can have unlimited access to all 80 episodes, wherever you want to watch them. If that's not up your budget alley, that's okay. You can rent each episode individually for $2.99 or buy it for $9.99. Even at that $10 price point, I can assure you most of these episodes are worth it, but you can see how you save money by buying them all up in one shot.
Here's where it gets better. In the next year, MST3K will be clearing about another dozen episodes, and those will also be available on the platform. Vimeo says it is working with the show and the movie studios to get rights to all 198 episodes at some point, but have not said where the parties are in the contract negotiations. And for those who are wondering about those new episodes and how it plays into you purchasing all 80 existing for $300, Vimeo said any newly-released content will be included in that bundle, so that's even more value added to the offer.
So I'm pretty excited about all of this, especially that you can now pick up the entire digital collection in one place. Are you excited, too? What's your favorite MST3K episode? Let me know in the comments section.
The Bitcoin saga is an interesting one. Amidst the violent ups and downs of the virtual currency, there has been a constant question on the minds of everyone. People have been wanting to know who the founder and creator of Bitcoin is. We know that the name Satoshi Nakamoto has been tossed around but we've not been able to put a face to the name. Whoever it is has made it very difficult to trace the concept of Bitcoin back to him or her. Even Newsweek went down a rabbit hole and came up empty-handed and confused. That was all true until this week, when we may have a new lead on who could've created Bitcoin.
Hackers have apparently gotten into Nakamoto's email address and have sent out emails and posted to Pastebin messages requesting payment for the hackers to disclose the true identity of the creator of Bitcoin. In the different messages, there have been five different Bitcoin addresses to send payment to, saying that, "Satoshis dox, passwords and IP addresses will be published when this address has reached 25 BTC."
Like we mentioned in previous articles, Satoshi could be a false name for an entire group of people for all we know. However the hackers have made it seem that it's one person and they know who it is. But given that they're hackers whose sole mission is to profit from others' loss, all of this could be a hoax. We do know that somebody has accessed the email account firstname.lastname@example.org, which is the email address included in the original Bitcoin documents. We also have seen small snippets of information that the hackers have posted online, but again, that could all be fabricated.
Then there's the warning directed to Satoshi and his/her safety. A message posted on the P2P Foundation forum said,
Dear Satoshi. Your dox, passwords and IP addresses are being sold on the darknet. Apparently you didn't configure Tor properly and your IP leaked when you used your email account sometime in 2010. You are not safe. You need to get out of where you are as soon as possible before these people harm you. Thank you for inventing Bitcoin.
So, hackers are trying to extort money from people in order to reveal who Satoshi really is. Should we really play into this? If someone created something, no matter how revered it may be, do we have a right to know who it is and demand that the person speak to the public? Bitcoin isn't a publicly-traded company or anything, so shouldn't we respect the privacy of the ones behind the creation? A lot of questions have been raised by this new bit of information. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the documents are released.
For some time now, there's been this interesting dynamic with the music-streaming company Pandora. Revenue has been steady but active subscribers are decreasing, yet the company responds by limiting free listening time. Then the company's CEO resigns amidst a very strong fourth quarter, leading to more confusion. But now, another positive move for Pandora happened this week as the company signed a huge deal with BMG, the distribution group that owns the rights to everyone's music from Jay-Z to Billy Idol.
Lately, Pandora has been at war with the music labels, much like Spotify, in order to try and reduce the payouts of royalties. It's been a largely unsuccessful endeavor, however this new deal solidifies the first step in the right direction as CFO of Pandora, Mike Herring, said that Pandora "ensured a royalty structure that works better for both of us."
So what's included in this new licensing package? Pandora will now pickup rights to BMG's collection of music from BMI and the American Society of Composers, and both have a pretty extensive catalog of pieces. No terms of the deal have been disclosed but sources close to the matter report both parties are pleased with the outcome.
This ties in to Pandora's mission to keep growing, despite having some pretty rough times with its music curation. With just under 75 million active users, according to Pandora, the company said it wants to reach 100 million in the next year or two. While having a lot of music will certainly help, the program's selection process still needs a lot of refinement. The same songs will constantly show up, or songs that have nothing to do with each other will play on the same station, just because they were composed by the same producer. In order to get that next 25 million, some hard work and effort will have to go into the actual service, otherwise people will stay attracted to alternative platforms.
The "serious discussion" rumors that Microsoft would be buying Mojang are apparently true. Microsoft will be planning to announce on Monday that it has acquired the gaming studio behind the insanely popular game, Minecraft, for $2.5 billion.
The acquisition, which will be huge for Microsoft's gaming properties, looks to bring more attention to Microsoft's mobile operating system, Windows Phone. The Xbox and PC brands are already locked-in with a huge core following and have supported Mojang, the makers of the PC version, 4J Studios, the devs behind the console edition and Notch, the founder of Minecraft.
Speaking of Notch, having Mojang picked up by Microsoft definitely wasn't something on anyone's radar due to Notch's blunt disdain for Microsoft technology. He has gone on record saying that he wouldn't even consider building a version of Minecraft for the Windows Phone, and that he isn't fond of Microsoft's platform. In late September of 2012, he went on Twitter to say,
Got an email from microsoft, wanting to help "certify" minecraft for win 8. I told them to stop trying to ruin the pc as an open platform.
I guess $2.5 billion would change that tune in two years. At any rate, a lot of people are enraged, mostly PC gamers interestingly enough, about the potential of Microsoft buying up their coveted game and dev studio.
To me, the move makes perfect sense on the business level. Sure, the game is already crazy popular on the PC and the Xbox 360, PS3 and Xbox One versions are doing incredibly well, with the 360 iteration breaking day-one sales records for non-disc games and moving over 8 million units since launch. To compare, Minecraft for the PC has just eclipsed 14 million and the game has been around three years longer.
But it goes beyond the game itself, and I'm a firm believer in Microsoft's proven track record that the company looks at the bigger picture. What gamers fail to see is that Minecraft is a brand, not just a game. Not only do you have a truly talented group of developers inside of Mojang that actually care about putting out a solid product, but they all seem to share the big-picture mentality that the executives do. Minecraft has licensing deals that can almost put Disney to shame. Plush toys, mini-games, clothing, cereal, computer mice, backpacks, LEGOs, and that's just the consumer-facing side of it. Mojang also uses Minecraft for a humanitarian purpose, with the game helping the United Nations with a project called Block by Block, which helps countries with urban development planning. Considering that Microsoft is involved both in helping others through its services and raking in money on licensing fees and patents, I can't see a better home for Mojang than with the Redmond-based tech giant. Plus, Windows Phone sales might skyrocket if a pocket version of Minecraft was made available for the platform.
No word yet on details like if the studio will move and who might be terminated, as Microsoft doesn't comment on things until they are official. We should have that information tomorrow, but what do you think of all this as it stands? Are you happy with the decision? Why or why not? Let it fly in the comments below.
By now, everyone knows about the announcements that came out of the Apple event this week. Two new iPhone sizes, another half-hearted wearable device and another mobile payment platform. While there may not have been anything to get excited about, there was something truly interesting that happened during the event - an admission from Apple that the iGeneration is over.
In 1998, Steve Jobs revealed the iMac, his first product since returning to the company. Despite poor sales in the beginning, the iMac had a profound impact on Apple: it set forth the naming of products for nearly 2 decades. Since the iMac, there has been the iPod, iPhone, iPad and software products such as iBook, iTunes, iLife and iWork. The odd naming convention spurred hundreds of companies and products from outside of Apple donning the lowercase i at the top of their brand. Even the Consumer Electronics Show has had a section of its show floor named the iLounge, despite Apple never participating in the event.
However, the Steve Jobs Apple died with him in 2011. The Tim Cook Apple began its life then, though no Tim Cook products had really been announced. Until now, only Steve Jobs updates had been announced, continuing to behave like the Apple of old. Because of this, we saw more iPod, iPhone and iPad announcements. But the winds are changing, and Tim Cook finally showed off HIS first 2 products, both with a new naming convention.
The product that everyone knew was coming and no one knew the name of, was known pre-announcement as the iWatch, though there were rumors of it being named iTime. Either way, the product seemed to fit nicely into the Steve Jobs Apple - beginning with the i. However, that was not the case. As you know, the product was announced as the Apple Watch, with the word "Apple" being replaced by the black corporate logo, similar to what we have seen on the Apple TV.
This was not the only entirely new (to Apple) product announced - we also saw Apple Pay, a service identical to that of Google and Microsoft's respective wallet services. The difference, however, is in the naming. The service name, Apple Pay, is named exactly the same as Apple Watch, with the Apple logo as part of the name. This gives the company 3 major products in this new naming scheme: Apple TV, Apple Watch and Apple Pay.
Why is this important? Apple is not one to make big changes, despite the public opinion to the contrary. They are a company set in their ways, and any major change to the culture is a shock. This new branding is a major change in culture, and therefore a shock. It is, almost certainly inspired by Tim Cook, who has been looking to make his lasting mark on the company in a good way, which he has had trouble doing to date.
A change in the company culture, especially one that supports Tim Cook in the captain's chair, is one that could finally make Apple a big player again. Since 2011, we have seen Apple's place in the industry slip - the iPod brand is all but dead, Android phones have nearly shut the iPhone out and low-cost Android and Windows tablets have cut into sales of the iPad. Many, including myself, have believed that this was because Tim Cook had not been accepted as the head of the corporate family. Perhaps a collection of products, launched by Cook and marketed under a new branding, could be exactly what Cook needs to truly lead the company.
The landscape of television and movies has been changing over the past few years in a big way. Less people are watching television live, with big new shows like The Blacklistbeing the most time-diverted shows on television. In fact, as I write this, I am streaming a television show on Netflix, which is a normal scenario for me. With services like Netflix and Hulu giving people access to shows without a cable subscription, many people have been cutting the cord with their cable companies; saving money with only Internet and subscriptions to these services.
Disney's ESPN brand is in an interesting place in the world of cord-cutters. People badly want to be able to get rid of their cable, but Disney has not made their content, especially their live content, available to the non-cable public. That is why people got excited when ESPN President John Skipper talked with Re/code and discussed streaming capabilities. This is the move that many people have been waiting for.
Unfortunately, Skipper shut down the excitement quickly, saying,
I do want to be clear, we are not looking to disrupt our linear channels and the content that's owned in that. We're going to go acquire new content and new kinds of things to go direct to consumers.
Let me translate: we want a streaming service, but we won't give people the content we already produce. That is unfortunate, but not entirely surprising. While the cord-cutters would like to be able to watch ESPN content without cable, there are some major legal hurdles that currently prevent Disney from making this content available over the Internet.
Let's take the NFL, for example. Any NFL game that ESPN/ABC broadcasts, either in part or entirety, is done under contract with the NFL. However, the NFL has other contracts with other carriers to provide that same content via other methods. For example, you can watch those games on a Verizon Wireless phone via exclusive contract. You could not, then, watch those on a Sprint phone, for example. If ESPN's content were made available via web, that contract would be violated.
Before ESPN could provide any of their existing content via streaming platform, they would need to change their contracts with content providers, and there are a lot of contracts to renegotiate. Some of those, such as the NFL, would not be possible at this point to renegotiate at all. Without those renegotiations, a useful ESPN platform is impossible.