Hulu

Please, please don’t take Hulu away. Actually, just don’t start charging for access to the site. Hulu.com offers a huge library of TV show clips and full episodes, all for free (and movies too). For me, Hulu is the perfect outlet for when I need to take a break from work and want to watch something that will make me laugh. Such as anything from Family Guy, SNL, It’s Always Sunny, or Arrested Development. However, it looks like Hulu make face some hard times in the near future.

Hulu, an NBC affiliated company, recently pulled its distribution feed from competitors Boxee and TV.com (CBS-owned). These sites were in agreement with Hulu for the right to stream Hulu content on their sites. Hulu is currently the most popular source for watching TV shows on the web, so why would they want to help out their competition. It looks like the move made by Hulu is an attempt to solidify their place as the most widely used website for TV entertainment.

So if Hulu wants to remain the first option that bored business people jump to, it doesn’t make sense to change a fee for access. However, more competition lurks just over the horizon. Cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner may try to build their own streaming video sites to compete with Hulu and TV.com. The cable companies hold one advantage in the fact that customers are already paying to receive cable in their homes. So the cable companies can try to leverage this into a package deal that includes home cable and web cable all for one sweet price. That sounds like a deal, even if it’s not, and people love signing up for a deal. If the cable companies manage to enter the online market, Hulu will be faced with a new strategic problem. Right now, Hulu makes money off of ad-supported content, but if customers prove willing to pay for this type of service, why not charge them?

Of course, I’m in favor of keeping online entertainment sites, like Hulu, free of charge. But this article makes me wonder; just how much longer will we be able to enjoy these sites for free? While more competitors are constantly entering this arena, free sites may become a luxury of the past.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Is-Hulus-Heave-Ho-First-Salvo-in-Digital-Content-War-66259.html?wlc=1235170561

"Facebook Owns You"

Still not on Facebook, but here comes another blog about just that topic. It seems the power of the people is enough to make Mark Zuckerberg change his mind, for now. Facebook made headlines (again) yesterday for their decision to revert back to their old terms of use. You may recall that several weeks prior, Facebook amended their terms to exclude the portion stating that users could remove their content at any time. In addition, they added new language stating that Facebook would retain users’ content after an account was terminated.

The blog “Consumerist” reported the Facebook terms of use change by saying “anything you upload to Facebook can be used by Facebook in any way they deem fit, forever, no matter what you do later.” First of all, who regularly reads the terms of use to even notice a seemingly minor change like this? In protest, some Facebook users created online groups to oppose the changes. The attached article cites that “thousands” of people commented on the change. So, what percent is that of the 175 million users worldwide? Less than 1%. Were any of those concerned Facebookers going to terminate their accounts because Facebook wants to use their personal information to sell to marketers? I can’t answer for everyone, but the impression I get from friends who live on Facebook is no. Honestly, they couldn’t care less about Facebook changing their terms of use, and the only reason I found out is because the article was one of the top headlines of the day. People protested because that’s what people do in our society. I think it’s doubtful that this change would have had any major lasting affect on Facebook.

Could Mark Zuckerberg steal everyone’s information and get away with it? Probably, but he didn’t. I’m guessing he decided to promptly apologize and withdraw the change because it made him look bad in the media. After watching his interview on dateline or 60 mins it was obvious that he’s an intelligent person. I’m confident that Mark Zuckerberg will come up with a new way to own every piece of information on Facebook and have everyone love him for doing it. Genius.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/technology/internet/19facebook.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=facebook&st=cse

Pirated Music

Web 2.0 technologies have led to many online applications and communities that make our daily lives easier, more convenient, and much more entertaining. Most of these technologies operate within the legal guidelines of our society; however, one does not. Downloading pirated music. There are an infinite number of websites dedicated to downloading copyrighted music illegally. Basically, any music that is downloaded without being paid for is considered illegal.

I would agree that retail CD prices are unreasonably priced, usually around $15-18. In fact, it’s much easier to stay home and download pirated music than drive to the store and dish out $15 per CD. In the past, I have heard friends justify pirated music with the logic that they only buy a CD for one or two songs that they like. Therefore, why not just download the two desired songs, and save the $15 CD cost. Well, that makes sense.

Hello iTunes. Now it is possible to purchase individual songs online for only $0.99. I have been a satisfied customer of the iPOD generation for the last five years. Before iPODs were introduced I can’t remember how music was purchased on the Internet. However, I can remember downloading music and not paying one cent for it. Now that I have access to iTunes, it almost seems criminal to download pirated music when I have the option to buy my favorite songs for only $0.99 each.

I still have issues with paying $15+ for a CD, although I find paying for music much more reasonable through iTunes. I imagine that others feel the same way that I do, and that the emergence of iTunes has led to a decline in pirated music. There will always be those people who refuse to pay for music when there remains a way to get it for free. But I think that iTunes is an acceptable alternative to stealing music. The only current deterrent to downloading pirated music is the threat of a lawsuit. Although to my knowledge, no one has been arrested yet for downloading a few songs on the weekend. Not a very successful deterrent. Perhaps the only other deterrent is the threat of downloading malicious software when you think you’re getting a music file. That’s a mistake that should make people think twice before downloading pirated music again.

Orbitz, Expedia, & Travelocity Bank on You Not Doing Your Research

What’s the number one thing that I consider when searching for online airfare? Sure, I like early flights and non-stop travel is great, but the number one thing is usually cost. I think that any moderate traveler will agree that the most cost-efficient airlines to fly are Southwest, AirTran, and JetBlue. I don’t really have a strong loyalty toward any particular airline, so I usually search around for the cheapest ticket when making travel arrangements. Since the emergence of Web 2.0 websites have been created to assist the customer in finding the cheapest airline tickets online. Websites such as Orbitz, Expedia, and Travelocity were designed to search airline ticket prices, and return the available tickets given the customers flying criteria.

Sites like Orbitz, Expedia, and Travelocity seem to provide the customer with an added convenience by taking all of the leg work out of finding the lowest-priced ticket. However, I have recently discovered that this convenience comes at a price. A ticket price for Southwest quoted on the “travel” site was actually higher than the ticket price on Southwest.com. This circumstance was a little perplexing since I always imagined if there was a price difference between the travel site and the actual airline site, the travel site would be lower. Not the case. From this experience, I would warn other consumers not to be fooled when travel sites claim that the airline and hotel industries give them a discounted rate for any vacancy.

It has been my experience that if you want to find the lowest-price ticket to travel, you are safest to book directly from the airline or hotel provider. This is not to say that Orbitz, Expedia, and Travelocity are completely useless. In fact, it makes sense to begin your travel research with one of these travel sites. At the very least, they will provide you with a list of the cheapest airline companies from which to begin your search. I would just recommend using caution when booking through a travel site because they may inflate the prices that are quoted, or include an additional “processing fee”. Plus, it is usually worth checking the individual airline websites as they frequently run promotions that are only available when booked through their site.

Slapped in the Facebook

Social networking sites have raised huge concerns regarding how safe our personal information really is. Sites like MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter encourage members to create and update their personal profiles, so members can search for others who share their same preferences. Although these sites offer some degree of a personal privacy setting, you can allow members accepted as “friends” to access your personal information. In the article titled “Slapped in the Facebook: Social Networking Dangers Exposed”, an experiment was conducted to prove just how easy it is to hack into a “friend’s” profile.

The article cites several examples of how personal information can be obtained through these social networking sites. The authors also provide ways to prevent your personal information from being compromised. Many of their tips involve knowing who you are accepting as a friend, and not arbitrarily accepting friend requests. Hackers have discovered that they can create fake profiles to befriend people on social networking sites and gain access to their personal information. Sites like MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter allow anybody to create a new profile using only a valid e-mail address. These sites do not validate any of the personal information that members provide to update their profile. With this knowledge, hackers can easily create profiles under an alias using a well-known name.

Social networking sites are a great way to keep in contact with friends, family, and business associates. However, you should never assume that everyone utilizing these sites is doing so with trustworthy intentions. Once your personal information is infiltrated, hackers can use that information to access all of your Web 2.0 sites. Perhaps social networking sites should increase their privacy policies to better protect their members. These sites should invest more resources in determining which profiles contain false information, and prohibiting the existence of false profiles on their site. On way to accomplish this would be to require members to provide valid credit card information before their account is activated. Many of the social networking site members are under the age of 18 and do not likely have their own credit card yet. For children looking to create a profile, a parent’s credit card would have to be used to establish the account. Hopefully, this policy change would also encourage parents to monitor the Internet activity of their children.

http://www.csoonline.com/article/479824/Slapped_in_the_Facebook_Social_Networking_Dangers_Exposed?page=1

"Warning! This site may harm your computer"

Google never stops developing new ideas, and here’s one of their latest. Google’s search engine now offers a warning message located above any resulting website that Google has determined to be potentially harmful to your computer. The warning label states “This site may harm your computer”, and it identifies the websites that may install malicious software on your computer. However, the warning message is just the first line of defense against harmful sites. If you click on the website a warning page will open instead of the potentially hazardous site. This warning is impossible to ignore and it includes a link to a site dedicated to preventing badware.

I think this is a fantastic feature to have on a search engine. With the heightened awareness of privacy issues and identity thefts that occur online, people are extra careful about the websites they visit and where they reveal personal information online. I commend the fact that Google is investing their resources in fighting the security problems that plague the web. In addition, this feature may help to extend the average life of computers.

Many people choose to use the Google search engine over Yahoo! and others because search results are returned faster and the most relevant sites are listed according to the search criteria. The new warning label does not increase the time of a search, but it does add an extra step to access a website that is deemed harmful. Clicking on a harmful site will not immediately direct the user to that site, but rather require them to confirm their choice after an automatic warning window pops up. Does the added security measure provide enough benefit to justify an extra step to open a website, and the time that it takes? I guess it depends on who you ask.

In recent news, last Saturday Google’s warning message experience a little glitch. For about one hour the result of every Google search returned websites that were all tagged with the harmful warning. Google explained the incident as a human error, and it was quickly corrected. This glitch did not have a lasting affect on Google’s search engine as it continues to account for about 70 percent of all Internet searches.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j4Sn-ehiL1W52Xn6UoqhUx2AQ_tw

Facebook & MySpace Apps on Cell Phones - Comes Standard

Just how popular have Facebook and MySpace become? Well, in the words of my mom, “What’s a Facebook?” Normally, I try to avoid bringing up “new” technology, or anything mainstream related to the web when I’m around my parents. So, what prompted her to ask “What’s a Facebook” – her new cell phone. Over the weekend, my mom purchased a BlackBerry from Verizon to replace her old cell phone. The BlackBerry comes standard with a handful of menu options, and surprisingly under the Internet icon was an application for both Facebook and MySpace.

After explaining in very general terms, what a Facebook is, I realized that Facebook and MySpace apps are now a part of the standard package on some PDAs. I wonder how many customer service calls Verizon receives from the Baby Boomer generation to ask what a Facebook is? I found it interesting that now, as consumers, we don’t have the option to add these social networking apps to our own BlackBerry or iPhone – they come standard. So, if I don’t want a Facebook app on my BlackBerry, I have to take the time to delete it. Not really a big deal. I realize the Facebook community is huge, about 150 million people world wide, but only around 40 million users in the US. Could this be a trend that we’ll see mimicked on other products? Will the next computer I buy come equipped with Facebook and MySpace applications right next to the Internet browser?

I can probably guess why cell phone companies decided to add Facebook and MySpace to their PDAs. The obvious reason would be to sell more products. Cell phones and PDAs have the capability to perform more functions than ever before, so why would they want to restrict an application that many people find useful? I think a secondary reason can be attributed to competition. For example, if the iPhone offers standard Facebook and MySpace apps on their product, but BlackBerry does not, then they can create an immediate competitive advantage.

My main point here is that websites like Facebook and MySpace have become so immensely popular to our generation that it is affecting how other retailers market their products. I never thought five years ago that when I turned on my cell phone I would have a menu consisting of recent calls, contacts, messaging, setting & tools, and MySpace. Well, believe it or not, that time has come.

Chris Hansen is my Idol

How have chat rooms and online communities transcended the web and landed on prime time television? In four little words, “To Catch a Predator”. Any kid with access to a computer should be forced to watch an episode of this show to give them a real life perspective of the potential dangers that lurk online. For anyone who has never seen “To Catch a Predator”, the premise of the show is about catching sexual predators who chat online about having sex with a decoy posing as an underage teen, then show up to meet at an undercover house. Once the predator enters the house, Chris Hansen reveals himself and proceeds to interview the pedophiles in what can only be described as an embarrassing, pathetic, yet entertaining interrogation.

One of the goals of the show is to urge parents to closely monitor their kid’s online activities. Young teens may be naïve enough to fall victim to this sort of predator, but parents need to be aware and take a proactive approach in educating their children about online sexual predators. “To Catch a Predator” brings to light two very important points associated with web technology. First, as previously discussed, the Internet has become the latest haven for sexual predators. In fact, the web can provide a cover and false identity for predators to hide behind, which makes it more difficult to prevent these types of crimes and catch the offenders. Second, on the more optimistic side, the web provides law enforcement new ways to trap such sexual predators, and lure them into situations, like “To Catch a Predator”, where they can be arrested.

One of the confusing legal-related points of the show involves the actual crimes that are being committed and punished. I say this because although the men are guilty of making perverted comments to (who they perceive as) underage teenagers, they never actually follow through on the criminal act. I believe the majority of the offenders are charged with ‘soliciting sexing from a minor’, which for first-time offenders is only punishable by probation and mandatory registration as a sex offender. Of course, I agree with the ideals that are being enforced on the show, I’m just questioning how effective these prevention techniques are to deter chronic sex offenders from utilize the Internet as their means.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10912603