Is The Relevant Web Really Nameless?

Holden Page at Pages Are Social recently wrote a piece about the relevant web being nameless. I can’t say that I really disagree, but it got me thinking about a few things. It’s true, services like my6Sense take the focus away from the authors/brands and place it on the actual content.

So what are bloggers and blog owners to do? While My6Sense is on the small scale of things, and the few who support My6Sense have come to love it, there is no doubt in my mind that a backlash will occur.

A number of things came to mind here. I remember not so long ago, when bloggers lamented the loss and fragmentation of blog comments. Services like Disqus came out of nowhere, giving ownership of comments to the commentators rather than the bloggers. I don’t see many blogs these days that don’t use Disqus or something similar. The blogosphere changes, content creators change with it.

I view an experience like my6sense as something like the radio for the written word. Of course, my6sense is not a corrupt industry where content creators pay the stations to play their junk, tricking the listener into thinking what’s popular. Rather, you have a channel of content customized by the reader. What they see is exactly what they are looking for.

The similarity with the radio is that, once you come across awesome content, you will want to know who wrote it in the same way that you would want to know who sings your favorite song on the radio. You will probably go further than just waiting for the radio to play that song and go buy the album. Just on the strength of that one piece, you are motivated to own tho whole shebang.

My6Sense and future technologies like it are fundamentally changing how we consume news, and its a benefit is purely for the consumers, not the producers.

Uhm….kinda. There is a saying that any blogger worth his salt has heard. Many have taken it to heart and many others write it off as bull: “Content is King.” As it stands now, you can pretty much write crap as long as you market it well. If you are awesome and networking and connecting with people, your writing skills don’t have to be that strong. I won’t point out any artist in particular, but how many have you hear don the radio or seen on stage at an awards show and wondered how the hell they got there?

Now, take the front man away. Ditch the artist and the blogger. All you have left is their content and, if it can’t stand on its own, that creator fails. This is where my6sense and the few other services like it are taking us. You won’t choose your favorite sites by how awesome you think the author is, but by how great their content is.

Great for the consumer, but all you bloggers half-assing it better get back to basics before it’s too late.

Amazon Giving Away Lady Gaga’s New Album to Promote Cloud Player

Well, it’s not actually free, but you probably have 99 cents knocking around under your couch cushions. Why so cheap? To get more users for their shiny new Cloud Player storage locker.

Lady Gaga Fan? Cop the album here and store it for free in the cloud. Play it on your mobile device or from your browser without ever having to actually download it.

Check out the details at AllThingsD, where they Peter Kafka goes into detail about the love-hate relationship between Amazon’s Cloud Player and the music industry.

Amazing Danger Mouse, Jack White, Norah Jones HTML5 Experience

If a web page calls itself an “experience” and requires Chrome Canary, the “cutting-edge experimental version of Google Chrome,” it’s gotta be awesome…RIGHT?! Check out the behind-the-scenes video below, download Canary, and check out the experiment.

“3 Dreams of Black” is Chris Milk’s new interactive film, created in WebGL with Google for Danger Mouse & Daniele Luppi’s ROME, featuring Jack White & Norah Jones. The project is a Chrome Experiment which pushes the boundaries of HTML5 and showcases the potential of video on on modern browsers. Watch the “Creation Of” video:

via hypebot.

Google’s Movie Rentals for Android Blocked for Rooted Devices

That fancy new movie rental section on the Android Market? You can’t use it if you have rooted your device. Kinda sucks and I can understand why many rooters would be upset, but I think Android Central goes a bit overboard here:

So now people who root their phones, whether to get rid of the crap “open” that’s forced down their throats, or to have a current version of Android, are punished and lumped in with folks who steal movies. Nice move, Google. That makes me want to buy more of your products and use more of your services, so I can be treated like a criminal just because I’m smart enough to get rid of CityID, or want a safe version of Android on my phone.

There is one important point we have to remember here: Google did not create these movies. In order for Google to distribute them, they need permission from the movie industry. We’ve already learned from the Netflix launch on Android that this industry forces those distributing their content to be very careful. This is one of the reasons Netflix isn’t available on all handsets yet.

Let’s also take a peak at the new Google Music and Amazon Cloud Player services. Both operate as simple cloud storage lockers which just so happen to be geared towards playing music. Without the music industry behind it, you are forced to simply upload all your junk instead of having these services recognize and match your library as Lala has done in the past. More than likely, Apple’s cloud-based music service will have this ability. Remember? Apple bought Lala and later shut it down.

Let’s not go blaming Google and try to realize that, without these restrictions, there probably wouldn’t be any movies at all for any Androids.

How to Import Foursquare Check-ins Into Google Places

If you’re reading this, I must assume you’re some type of techy. Who else would bother with Google Places? Facebook and Foursquare have that location check-in thing on lock. At any rate, Google just announced the ability to import any RSS feed that includes location data and I’m going to show you how to do so with Foursquare.

Google Places just announced a new feature that lets you import the places you’ve checked-in to on Foursquare into Google to rate and review. It’s as simple as finding the feed from your Foursquare profile, copying its link and pasting it into the search box in Places. It’s really easy! via ReadWriteWeb

Well, it’s not that hard, but if you haven’t a clue about RSS and all that jazz, I don’t think “really easy” covers it. Especially not with an exclamation point (Marshall, you’re still my dude).

The first thing you want to do is grab your Foursquare RSS feed. For your privacy, these feeds are available using private token URLs. This means you have to be logged into Foursquare to even see them.

  1. Login to Foursquare.
  2. Go to Foursquare.com/feeds.
  3. Copy the link to the RSS feed for your check-in history (right-click on PC, control-click on Mac).
  4. Fire up Google Places.
  5. Paste the URL you just grabbed from Foursquare into the search box and hit Search button.

Now, this will pull in some of your recent check-ins and give you the option to rate them. Here is where things get a little funky. You’re only going to get the last 10 or 20 check-ins, not much if you actually use Foursquare.

To increase the number of results you see, you have to add a parameter to the end of the URL. Try adding “?count=1000” to the end (no spaces) before you hit Search and you should see more results as you hit Load More at the bottom of the page.

The other thing to keep in mind is that Google Places is all about Ratings. If you don’t actually go through and rate the places that show up from Foursquare, you haven’t actually imported them into Google Places.

Again, if all you do is paste the feed from Foursquare and hit Search, you haven’t imported any info into Google Places. You must go through and rate the places you’ve been.

via Google Places Now Imports Your Foursquare Check-Ins.

Are Google And Amazon’s Cloud Music Services Dead in the Water?

 

Google Music

 

As you may have noticed, Amazon and Google have both launched cloud music services. These work as storage lockers, where you can upload music from your computer and play that music, streamed directly from the cloud, to just about any computer or mobile device.

iTunes Dominates

Apple’s iTunes, the king when it comes to buying music online, has been rumored to be launching a similar service. The main difference being that Apple will launch with support from record labels while Amazon and Google are going it alone.

Why is this important?

It all comes down to how you get started on these services. With Amazon and Google, you have to upload all of your music to the cloud. As I can personally attest, this takes for-freaking-ever even for a modest amount of music.

It’s hard to overstate how critical this is. Right now, Amazon makes you upload your own library for any song you haven’t purchased from them since their service launched those you purchase from them can automatically be added to your locker. Google doesn’t even have a music purchase option at all yet, so you have to upload music.

As Jason and I talked about on OMG/JK this week, that means hours or days of uploading — that’s what he had to go through. How many people are realistically going to do that? Not a lot.

via TechCrunch

Look Mom! No Uploading!

You see, Apple could get around the uploading by scanning your music library and simply unlocking those tracks for you in their online library. You won’t have to upload, but you’ll still have access to your music in the cloud. This is exactly what LaLa used to do.

Why This is Dangerous

We have to remember that the gate keepers are gone. The music industry is desperately trying to hold onto a revenue model that consumers and artists are just not feeling anymore. They tried to lock us down with DRM, which failed miserably, so how else could they possibly limit our music?

Oh! I know. Get direct access to all the music on your local drive. Scan it and compare it with watermarks (yes, they can do that), hashes, or whatever from “official” services like iTunes and Amazon. Maybe they even compare your library to an extensive library of pirated music they snagged from torrents.

Bottom line for me is that I don’t think I want a cloud music service that has anything to do with the record labels. A dying beast is always the most dangerous. Of course, I’ve never bought anything from iTunes anyway and never plan to start.

Back to the Technical Side

You only have to upload your music once. After that, uploading an album here and there isn’t going to be a big deal. With Amazon, you don’t even have to upload anything because they’ll automatically dump your purchases into your cloud storage. Purchases made in their store don’t count against your storage limit.

What Do You Think?

I’m not down for an industry-backed cloud player, but what about you? Why? Which company will you roll with?