Kindle 2 Arrives to Fanfare, Disappointment

by Mielle Sullivan, Janus Networks

Amazon shipped the second generation of its e-reader, the Kindle 2, this week and received considerable fanfare, considerable criticism and great expectation of the next Kindle.

The Kindle 2 does vaunt some improvements on the first version: it is lighter, thinner, faster, has a bigger display and can view many different types of documents. Yet, most reviews talk more about what the  second Kindle 2 lacks than what it does. A life-changing, electronic reader (or some form of electronic paper) has been part of popular imagination since computers became consumer goods. Like the flying car, it seems the next logical step in our technological evolution. But even with vast achievements in technology, making light-weight, electronic paper with all features we consumers have come to demand has proved very difficult.

From its inception the Kindle has been called the iPod for books and the same revolutionary experience in media consumption is expected to result. But the iPod comparison is misleading. For starters, the iPod  was not competing with sci-fi images of itself in the minds of consumers. Furthermore, because of the iPod, we have been conditioned to expect even more features: touch screens, full color display, full web interaction etc. How does anyone build a device with all this functionality and a screen big enough for comfortable reading without competing with the laptop market? For a variety of reasons, including all the distractions inherent in a full computer, people typically don’t use their laptops to read books anyway. Finding just the right balance of functionality to purpose is the real challenge for e-reader makers.

Of course, Amazon isn’t the only company trying to strike that balance. Sony has a an e-reader with a touchscreen that also plays MP3s, but it has no wireless connection and users complain of screen glare. There are also significantly more books available through Amazon for the Kindle than Sony provides through itsebookstore.

The most exciting competition for both devices may come from Plastic Logic’s ebook reader. The device has yet to be named or released but apparently will sport a touchscreen, a wireless internet connection, full color display and an 8.5 x 11 screen–perfect for viewing magazine and newspaper pages with no loss. However, at present Plastic Logic’s product is just a promise. The company is running into some trouble delays getting the device manufactured and it has yet to be vetted by any real consumer experience.

My guess is even if Plastic Logic’s devices does everything it claims, it will not end the functionality debate. An e-reader should be not be a computer or an iPod touch; it shouldn’t do everything. An e-reader should facilitate reading in a comfortable and natural way. I also think that proprietary issues will, for at least a few years, continue to hold back content accessibility which is as much important to an e-reading revolution as the perfect device.

Hulu, Boxee and the Challenge of Web Television

by Mielle Sullivan, Janus Networks

The long anticipated television/computer convergence hit a potentially crippling set back this week when Hulu, one of the most popular streaming video sites removed its content from Boxee, a popular Internet to TV integration app.

Hulu had been available on Boxee since October. Both companies had gained followers and popularity as a result. It seemed like the perfect arrangement: Hulu brought you the content, Boxee brought it to your television. Given the seemingly mutual beneficial relationship, it is hard to understand why Hulu would break it off. At present, Hulu doesn’t have an alternate method of bringing it’s content directly to TVs, and this decision has angered many users who will likely not consumeHulu’s content if they can’t do so through a TV.

Hulu also pulled its content from TV.com, a CBS site. Hulu is a joint venture between NBC and Universal News Corp, so there is some network competition. What is probably more important, however, is securingHulu’s brand as the place for Internet television. Though it has tremendous potential, Boxee is a start up still in alpha testing. Hulu has hundreds of thousands of users, is growing very fast and probably has the best brand name for TV and movie length web videos. From that perspective, it is easy to see whyHulu would want control over its distribution. Also, just because Hulu is free and and ad supported now, doesn’t mean it won’t want to offer paid premium or subscription services in the future.

Nevertheless, Boxee is not necessarily competition for a paid subscription model or distribution. It functions more like an aggregator or a portal to video content on the web–merely making it easier to find and put on your TV. My guess is that Hulu, along with its content providers and cable companies (who do authorize some of Hulu’s content) are planning their own video web portal so they can control the user experience. But this may be disastrous for Hulu. It is hard to create a walled garden on the Internet. The more you try to hide away, the more incentive there is for another company to come along and offer the same thing, or something similar, for free.Hulu became popular because it was easy, had great content and was free. If it tries to control its users too much, they will simply go elsewhere.

What’s Next for Twitter?

A few weeks ago, rumors started circulating that soon Twitter would start charging businesses to send out messages or tweets. These rumors made sense. The microblogging service has to pay cell phone carriers for tweets sent to handsets and since its inception the company has been running off of venture capital with no business model or clear path towards monetization. Following the Craigslist model of charging companies, not individuals seemed ideal for Twitter. But last week, founder Biz Stone announced that the service would remain free to all.

So how will Twitter make money? Well, apparently it doesn’t have to bring in revenue anytime soon–maybe even years. Investors have proved very patient when it comes to returns on their social media investments. Facebook, now with over 200 million users, still doesn’t have a business plan. Twitter also obtained an additional $35 million in funding this week–and it wasn’t even seeking more investment. The company still has plenty of money from it’s last fund raising round.

But eventually Twitter will have to generate revenue. In the same blog post, Stone alluded to plans for monetization. Although he couldn’t have been more vague as to what those might be, saying: “What we’re thinking about is adding value in places where we are already seeing traction.” The blogging world has thrown up several ideas of how Twitter could make money. In my view, the most sensible of these are package deals with cell phone carriers and allowing companies to bid for answering consumer questions.

The problem with advertising on Twitter is that the service dependent on maintaining a very high level of relevancy. Throw too many ads at the users and the service loses it’s connection and eventually it’s audience. However, users in other countries may not have the same expectations, especially if they are new users. Twitter’s Japanese website included side banner ads from the first day.

Twitter is likely to take time figuring out monetization. When it does come up with ideas, they will probably be tested in other countries first. When anything new is tried in the U.S., the reaction will be gauged very carefully. There may be some trial and error and false starts. Layers of monetization may be introduced very slowly over a period of years.

For now, Twitter will remain a small (currently 29 employees), lean, independent company plotting it’s next moves carefully banking on future success. Lat last year the company turned down an offer of $500 million from Facebook, so their confidence must be pretty high.

Coming Soon: 3G Lightbulbs

by Mielle Sullivan, Janus Networks

Researchers at the University of Cambridge have developed a method of producing LEDs that is three times more efficient than CFLs and makes bulbs that last for sixty years.

Gallium nitride lights are already adorning monuments like Tower Bridge in London, but current production methods make them prohibitively expensive for consumer use. Most of the cost comes from the sapphire wire used to grow the GaN crystals. The researchers discovered a method of layering aluminum gallium nitride onto silicon wafers that can then be used to grow GaN crystals. This process grows nine times more crystals and is significantly cheaper. Thus reducing production costs by a factor of ten and making GaN LEDs price competitive with other standard household light bulbs.

If test projections are correct, they could reduce household lighting costs by 75%. Obviously, there would be significant energy savings as well. Widespread energy efficiency is crucial to reducing climate change, so these new LEDs will be a blessing to consumers and the environment alike. Not to mention, they light up instantly, are dimmable and don’t contain mercury which has made disposal of CFLs so problematic.

The bulbs should be available in five years are estimated to cost about $3 apiece. My lamp feels obsolete already.