Apple looking to launch Siri-powered TV by 2013

We knew this was coming.  Via GigaOm:

The Apple television is the latest, hottest subject of the rumor mill that surrounds the company. On Thursday, the New York Times‘ Nick Bilton published a lengthy report related to the still-unconfirmed product, revealing many details sourced from Apple employees and others close to the company who spoke to him on the condition of anonymity. Bilton says Siri is the key to Jobs’ feeling that he finally “cracked it,” as Walter Isaacson’s biography quotes him saying. What he cracked was a streamlining of the interface so that control is intuitive and simple. Thanks to Siri, Bilton says, you could now just talk to your TV set, and it would respond to your commands. Other new details include plans dating back as early as 2007, after Apple had released the original Apple TV, to make a complete set. The product has since been definitely in the works at Apple, its development spurred on by the fact that “Steve thinks to the industry is totally broken,” according to one of Bilton’s source. In the Isaacson biography, it’s revealed that many other successful Apple products, including the iPod and the iPhone, were created based on the same sense on the part of Jobs that what was already out there was sub-par. As to when this might arrive, Bilton says it is “close enough” now that it might be announced as early as late 2012, with a 2013 release date in terms of actually getting the product in the hands of consumers. The hold-up is mainly about waiting until the cost of large display components falls far enough to make it possible for Apple to offer the TV at a competitive price point. Making the product thin and light is also another development hurdle facing its release, according to the report. Many pundits have proclaimed an Apple television a bad idea, but it’s a chorus we’ve heard many times before; the iPod, iPhone and iPad all had very vocal detractors, with plenty ofnegative reaction even after the product was actually unveiled. Also, as John Gruber points out, commenting on the release of the Bloomberg TV 24-hour live video app, “Apps are the new channels.” If Apple can get more content providers to produce similar content-delivery solutions for its iOS devices, it’ll have much bait with which to lure potential Apple television customers whenever that product does make it to market.

Nike Ad: 'Basketball Never Stops'

Nike has told the NBA lockout to suck it, via an awesome ad they've put together combining hoop heroes at both the professional and collegiate level [Ed's note: no money was paid to any college athletes.  Just covering my ass here].  Just because the millionaires aren't getting their Maserati insurance covered right now, the game doesn't stop:

YouTube Announces Channel Strategy

Yes this is days old, but it was Halloween weekend, so simmer down.  As expected, YouTube finally announced a series of category focused channels, making it look even more like a MSO.  What's interesting is that they sold off the individual channels to different content providers, and a close source to me from Digital Broadcasting Group (owner of the 'Spaces' channel), told me that it was insanely competitive to get a slot.

Here's what AdWeek said about it all:

After months of speculation with almost no official confirmation, YouTube has finally announced its long-awaited channel strategy in a post to the company’s blog late Friday evening. The announcement falls in line with what had previously been reported in the press: namely that YouTube will be expanding its lineup of channels to include new offerings from a variety of partners, including well-known personalities and brands in the Hollywood, music, news, and sports worlds. “These channels will have something for everyone, whether you’re a mom, a comedy fan, a sports nut, a music lover or a pop-culture maven,” YouTube’s global head of content partnershipsRobert Kyncl said in the post. Under the new system, content creators—like Vice Media or the video game lifestyle network Machinima, for example—will have a dedicated channel on the site that they will control, continually updating it with video content. YouTube, for its part, will sell ads against that video inventory. YouTube is seeking to organize its site much in the way a cable provider organizes linear TV channels—a fact that Kyncl acknowledged in his post today. “Cable television expanded our viewing possibilities from just a handful of channels to hundreds, and brought us some of the most defining media experiences of the last few decades—think MTV, ESPN, and HBO,” Kyncl wrote. “Today, the Web is bringing us entertainment from an even wider range of talented producers, and many of the defining channels of the next are being born, and watched, on YouTube. “ The channel announcement comes on the heels of a number of other content initiatives from YouTube in recent months, such as its Partner Grant program—announced in July—which sets aside a total of $5 million in creative grants for qualifying video makers to improve their video content. The efforts are aimed at coaxing viewers into engaging with YouTube as they engage with television, spending much more time watching a wider, more compelling array of video content. As YouTube chief Salar Kamangar wrote last May in a blog post entitled "Welcome to the future of video. Please stay a while," "You’re spending just 15 minutes a day on YouTube, and spending five hours a day watching TV. As the lines between online and offline continue to blur, we think that’s going to change."

I Finally Played Angry Birds

After all the chaos and cult like activity around Angry Birds, I finally get it.  It's outrageously stupid and simple, but addicting as hell.  I'm playing it on the Chrome App, amazing.

The Rumors Are True; MC Hammer Is a Start-Up Guy

I had heard this before when a close friend from a targeting company said, "Hammer was at our launch party for our app."  I of course thought he meant they were playing "Ice Ice Baby" on repeat.  Little did I realize that the parachute pants man himself was at their PingMe launch party.

So then I read last week that Hammer is launching a search engine, that oddly enough cannot be found in Google search (check that metadata Hammer). [EDS note I finally just found it after days of searching]  Hammer, born Stanley Kirk Burrell, is challenging the Mountain View Googlers with his new project Wiredoo. Currently in beta and accepting private users, Wiredoo will act as a “deep search” or “relationship” engine. Rather than just return “the 10 blue links” of keyword-based results, he explained in an interview with Web 2.0 summit co-producer O’Reilly Media, WireDoo will also display more tangential data culled from Web indices, public data, and social media. A Zip Code search might net local school statistics and home prices, for example.

As per the question with any search related offering, do we care?  Don't the leaders in the space have it down pretty good?  If anyone can tell me the last time a general search query turned up really blank and useless, you get a small token from the Rants laire.

hopefully they are ready by the time Hammer's series C runs out

Virality Done Right by EVB

Evolution Bureau in San Francisco has set the bar high again with a hilarious series of one minute videos for "Pet's Add Life," a campaign for the American Pet Products Association.

Calling The Digital Ad Industry; Let's Start Taking Banners Off Web Pages

Now, before everyone who works for an ad exchange, banner ad network, RTB or yield optimization firm flips their shit and calls me susie, just hear me out.  I want to make a case for removing advertising from our sites, and I'm a seller, so in theory I want that space.

First, for this entire rant, let's immediate remove the following ad products from the conversation because they are separate; pull downs, peel backs, expandable home page units, page skins, takeovers, etc.  What I'm talking about is your everyday standard IAB banners.

Let's just say we wanted to start driving up the value of ad inventory again (gasp, why would we want that).  I don't think anyone would argue that there is more banner space available than the market is demanding.  Fair to say, you can go to any major website, navigate 15 pages in and there are still leaderboards and skyscrapers everywhere.  Now, those useless placements are selling for pennies on ad exchanges and optimizers are crunching every penny in real time bidding environments to very slightly outbid someone else's minute spend threshold.  I'm making the case that if we move back to a model where we minimalized overall ad frequency and touch points in banners, we on the publishing side would maintain higher quality of advertiser and higher pricepoint.  Adversely, advertisers now avoid ad clutter and actually get their message across.  Lastly, consumers don't suffer from advertising overload and they actually respond to messaging like they did in the good old days.  Keep the level of targeting up but reduce ad clutter, I think you see better performance.

My focus is in video, and I have strong concerns about the commodization of long tail video.  There is no doubt that premium video inventory (I'm talking pre-roll only) will always command a high pricepoint.  It's a unique one on one interaction.  But the price is being driven down by exchanges drudging up video inventory and shipping it off for pennies, yet the value of the placement remains high.  Yes there was another subtle point in there; price and value are two different things.

On an aside, can someone tell me if ad exchanges are actually making money?  How many ways can you slice up a penny?

Nike Soccer Commercial's Are Like Michael Bay Movies

Slow motion camera work, bumping bass, Wayne Rooney voice over.  Wow.  Production value is high.

The Antelope Who Crushed The Biker

We've all seen it, but let's see it again.