Google extends definition of ‘docs’ to include video

Posted on by

Hmmm… Just read this. Google’s encouraging me to upload my video files to Docs. Uploaded video files can be up to 1 GB.

These are the most common video formats that you can upload and play:

* WebM files (Vp8 video codec and Vorbis Audio codec)

* .MPEG4, 3GPP and MOV files – (h264 and mpeg4 video codecs and AAC audio codec)

* .AVI (many cameras use this format – typically the video codec is MJPEG and audio is PCM)

* .MPEGPS (MPEG2 video codec and MP2 audio)

* .WMV

* .FLV (Adobe – FLV1 video codec, MP3 audio)

I can understand why people might want to use Docs for private videos, or ones to which they wish to restrict access to selected friends and family. But for public stuff, why not use YouTube — also a Google property?

10 Digital Music predictions for 2011

Posted on by

Interesting post by Luke Lewis.

Here are the ones that struck me:

  • Streaming will stop looking like the future…
  • Which means piracy will flourish
  • Bands will stop using Myspace
  • Gig-going will become more social
  • Downloads will get cheaper

    • Worth reading in full. The most controversial one is his conclusion that the Spotify business model isn’t sustainable. I’m not convinced.

    Thanks to Caspar for the link.

    LATER: Interesting email from a reader re my comment about Spotify:

    Maybe Spotify and streaming is not the future. I’ve been a paid subscriber to Spotify for over a year and have just discovered that half of my playlists and downloaded tracks have been removed owing to ECM pulling out (Naxos are rumoured to be next to go). Ironic as well over a third of my CD and LP collection is ECM and the last three CDs I have bought (within the last three months) are all ECM.

    Keeping a record

    Posted on by

    This morning’s Observer column.

    A few months ago, I went to an intriguing talk given by Lorcan Dempsey, who is a leading authority on the role of libraries in the digital world. One of the slides in his presentation really made me sit up. The context was an account of how different academic libraries are going about the archiving of digital material. The slide in question focused on Emory University, a wealthy, private research university in Atlanta, Georgia. Like many such institutions, it has been buying up the papers of well-known writers and already has a fine collection of Irish scribblers in its archives. But it also has the papers of Salman Rushdie and this was the subject of the slide that startled me.

    Why? Because it showed that Emory’s Rushdie archive included not only the writer’s papers, but also his old computers and hard drives. And there, on the slide, was the symbol for an old Apple Macintosh computer and in its directory listing was a folder entitled, simply, “My Money”. And at that moment, if you will forgive the pun, the penny dropped…

    There are also some good (critical) comments by readers.

    The King’s Speech

    Posted on by

    We went to see The King’s Speech last night. I thought it was terrific — beautifully acted, cleverly written and surprisingly moving. Colin Firth gives a great performance as the stammering monarch-to-be but what really blew me away was Geoffrey Rush’s rendition of Lionel Logue, the speech therapist who gave him his voice. (Helena Bonham-Carter is also good as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, but her performance isn’t in the same league as that of the two men.)

    One small, cavilling point. The film claims to be based on a true story — of how a rough Antipodean diamond of a speech therapist enabled a shy stammerer to carry out his public duties. But Derek Jacobi portrays Archbishop Cosmo Lang — who played such a pivotal role in the Abdication crisis — as an odious little creep. I’m perfectly prepared to accept that senior prelates can be odious creeps (as a former Irish Catholic I could give you a long list of same), but Lang seems to have been a more complex character than Jacobi’s performance allows. For example, the Wikipedia entry on him claims that he denounced Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia and was outspoken about European anti-semitism. On the other hand, Wikipedia also claims that he supported the appeasement policies of the Baldwin and Chamberlain administrations.

    The real Cosmo Lang.

    Whatever else, Lang was right about the odious Edward VIII and his manipulative floozy (magnificently rendered in the film by Eve Best). A Life magazine profile of him published in 1939 records that in October 1936 he and the Archbishop of York “respectfully requested to be permitted to decline” a Royal invitation to a dinner at St. James’s palace at which Wallis Simpson was to be present. Later, Lang threatened to withhold communion from Edward if he married her. Eddie is reported to have retorted: “Please remember that I am the head of your organisation”. The magazine also goes on to reveal something startling: that on November 17, while the great British public was still completely in the dark about what was going on, Lang presided over a secret session of the House of Lords to discuss the crisis. (Hmmm… I wonder about that: surely the ‘speaker’ of the Lords at the time would have been the Lord Chancellor.)

    The IMDB entry for the film notes one ‘goof’: in a scene set in 1934 Bertie (then still Duke of York) refers to “Marshal Stalin”. However, says IMDB, “Joseph Stalin was appointed Marshal of the Soviet Union almost 10 years later, in March 1943.”

    The trailer for the film is here. Hope you enjoy it as much as we did.

    On reflection… Another thought. Given that it’s supposed to be a true story, the film’s portrayal of Winston Churchill’s role in the Abdication crisis seems misleading. The impression is given that Churchill — played by a smouldering cigar ably brandished by Timothy Spall — was firmly behind Bertie and — by implication — implacably hostile to Eddie. But that wasn’t the case. For example, he and Lord Beaverbrook, the newspaper proprietor, were in favour of allowing the King to put his case (for being allowed to marry Wallis) to “the people” via a radio broadcast. This idea was blocked by the Cabinet, on the grounds that it would undermine the principle of a constitutional monarchy (which is that the only body entitled to decide these matters is Parliament).

    The Facebook Gold(man) rush, contd.

    Posted on by

    More from Good Morning Silicon Valley.

    Here’s a somewhat clearer look at how much money Facebook is making, according to the Wall Street Journal, which cites a 100-page document given to potential investors by Goldman Sachs: For the first nine months of 2010, the Palo Alto company’s revenue was $1.2 billion, its profit $355 million. And by the way, the same document shows that because it expects to surpass the legal threshold for number of private investors, Facebook will either have to go public or disclose financial information by April 2012, which excites Silicon Valley and others who have been waiting for the lackluster IPO market to make a triumphant return. The New York Times’ DealBook likens the interest surrounding the possible IPOs of Facebook and other social networking companies such as Twitter and Zynga to the dot-com boom of the 1990s.

    This corrects a misapprehension of mine. I had thought that if a company went over 499 shareholders, then SEC rules would oblige it to float. But that’s not the case. It either has to float, or publish more detailed financial information.

    Facebook: the Gold(man) rush

    Posted on by

    It’s funny how people never learn. This useful report from Good Morning Silicon Valley brings back memories of the first Internet boom, and of the unscrupulous role that, ahem, major investment banks played in fuelling the lunacy. GMSV notes a WSJ article stating that Facebook’s 2009 profit was $200 million on revenue of $700 million, and goes on:

    The New York Times’ DealBook reports today that Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, a $20.3 billion investment fund, was given first dibs at the Facebook investment but declined because of concern that the Palo Alto company’s $50 billion valuation is too high. The report also cited unnamed sources who say Facebook’s 2010 net income was $400 million on revenue of $2 billion. A Bloomberg report compares Facebook to Google: A $50 billion valuation is about 25 times the reported 2010 revenue, while Google’s price-to-sales ratio is estimated at 9. Another Facebook-Google comparison of note comes from Connie Loizos at peHUB: “When Google went public in 2004, it steered clear of sweetheart deal-making. … Deals like that of Facebook-Goldman reek of an old boys club way of doing business.”

    Yep. Even if I had any money (which I don’t) and was minded to invest in tech stocks (which would be unethical, given my newspaper column) I wouldn’t ever touch a deal in which Goldman was involved. This, after all, is the bank that was recently fined for screwing its own clients. And now some of those saps are stampeding to get a ludicrously overpriced slice of the Facebook action. In ordinary life, they say that one sucker is born every minute. In the stock market, their birth rate seems to be considerably higher.

    Later: It seems that the minimum investment Goldman requires for anyone who want to be involved in its Facebook fund is $2m. For disconsolate souls who don’t have that much money to lose, Silicon Valley Insider has this consoling news:

    There’s a fun penny stock called Snap Interactive, whose fortune is tied to Facebook.

    The company has the most popular dating app on Facebook and charges a small fee for some users. It’s managed to generate $2.7 million in revenue last quarter up from $1.7 million the quarter before.

    That growth has gotten some investors attention, and now the stock price is soaring — its up over 1,000% in the last 30 days. So, if you want to roll the dice, and you want to play a Facebook company on the public markets, here’s your chance.

    Er, their chart suggests that you may have missed even that boat.

    This looks like a bubble to me, folks, with Goldman Sachs manning the airpump. The strategy seems clear: to stampede Facebook into a flotation by triggering the SEC rules that a company with more than 499 shareholders has to float.

    In the interests of balance… I should point out that not everyone agrees with me that Facebook is over-valued at $50 billion.