Showing posts with label Samsung. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Samsung. Show all posts



















THE BIG DATA GRAB

What follows is an article by Joshua Kopstein, journalist at Al Jazeera America.  The piece is sending a caution signal concerning the ubiquitous machine to machine connections that will track our very existence, minute by minute, second by second.  You should be concerned.

Of all the attractions at Walt Disney World, none is more dogmatic than the Carousel of Progress, a rotating stage show originally presented at the 1964 World’s Fair in New York. The Carousel of Progress is an animatronic history of consumer technology, as told by an unaging American family expressing starry-eyed wonder at the ever-increasing conveniences available to them — from modern plumbing and electricity to television, washing machines and home automation.

The show has undergone several updates since its debut, but its techno-utopian message remains clear: No matter the era, the entirely white robot family sings, there’s always a “Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow” promising ever greater convenience and contentment — thanks, of course, to General Electric, the Carousel of Progress’ original sponsor. (The company briefly forced the creation of a much less catchy theme song for the show called “Now Is the Time” because it was worried Americans would gaze off into tomorrow instead of buying appliances today.)

Disney’s consumer fantasy proved alive and well at last week’s Consumer Electronics Show, an overwrought annual spectacle where tech executives appear on unnecessarily large stages to unveil often unnecessary products that nobody asked for. This year, companies were more determined than ever to pitch the so-called Internet of Things, the questionable (and often perilous) trend of adding Internet connectivity to every mundane household item imaginable. It’s a stupidly simple racket: Just take anything that exists (shoelaces, refrigerators, toothbrushes, toasters) put a computer chip or camera in it, connect it to the Internet and — voila! Who wants boring old things when you can have smart things?

The appropriately named Twitter account Internet of Shit highlights some of the most cringeworthy examples from the 2016 Consumer Electronics Show. Sick of having to walk over to your refrigerator and open it? Smart refrigerators now have cameras that let you see inside using your smartphone. Tired of tying your own shoelaces? Try on a pair of smart shoes that loosen and tighten themselves with the touch of an app. If you’re trying to lose weight, why manually count the notches on your belt when you can wear a Samsung smart belt that tracks the size of your waistline? The Internet of Things isn’t just for humans anymore either: Now your pets can wear their own fitness trackers and even call you at work through paw-activated two-way video monitors.

With their overhyped sales pitches, companies seem convinced that Internet-connected everything is the next chapter in the triumphant story told by Disney’s Carousel of Progress. The sad truth is the Internet of Things has thus far been an endless parade of novelty junk appealing to first world laziness and privileged overindulgence. Even the more promising smart home devices, such as Google’s Nest thermostat, differ from their disconnected counterparts mainly in their ability to be accessed with a smartphone, making them just another thing to be checked on after our social media feeds and email inboxes.

So if these products aren’t poised to improve our lives in any major or meaningful way, why are companies so intent on selling them?

There are two answers: data and control.
The Internet of Things threatens to reconfigure the entire notion of ownership, with corporations in the center and paying customers completely at their mercy.
 
Companies desperately want consumers to buy into the Internet of Things because it will allow them to colonize an entirely new galaxy of data. Silicon Valley and advertisers have already constructed a colossal market around the mining and monetization of private information; digital advertising, which depends primarily on tracking and exploiting the personal data of Internet users, exploded to a record $27.5 billion in revenue in the first half of 2015. Even companies that aren’t traditionally in the data-gathering business, such as Internet service providers, have started treating customers as quarries of data to be harvested and sold.

Now with the Internet of Things, any business can become a technology company. And companies are salivating at the idea of consumers voluntarily putting data-gathering devices in their homes and on their bodies — whether it’s a Nest thermostat reporting when you’re away from home, a camera-equipped smart fridge tracking your food shopping habits or a smart belt informing various unknown entities how your weight loss regimen is going.

If this sounds like a big win for corporations, it’s nothing next to the unprecedented amount of control they will be able to exercise in a world of always connected objects. With old-fashioned appliances, the dynamic was pretty straightforward: You buy a toaster, and it’s yours to do with as you please. But buying a smart toaster means buying software, which can be remotely and silently altered to function differently (or stop functioning altogether) at the whim of whichever distant corporation created it.

Many early adopters have already experienced this firsthand. After a recent software update, owners of Panasonic smart TVs noticed that their pricey big screens now randomly display ads when they adjust the volume. Samsung smart TVs eavesdrop on your living room conversations by default, automatically recording your voice to a distant server unless you opt out. And smart fridge owners have already been threatened by bugs exposing their Gmail accounts and locked out of certain features for over a year as they wait for the company to issue patches (which, in a few short months, it will no longer be under any obligation to provide.)

The Internet of Things thus threatens to reconfigure the entire notion of ownership, with corporations in the center and paying customers completely at their mercy. What happens when Samsung decides it’s no longer profitable to provide security updates for your $5,000 smart fridge? How about when Apple or Google starts deactivating your TV because you’ve been put on a government blacklist, disabling your car after you miss the deadline on an insurance payment or bricking your coffee machine because it reached its end-of-life date, according to a terms of service agreement that nobody reads?

Regulating Internet of Things devices would ostensibly protect consumers and prevent the worst of these practices. But apart from the formation of an Internet of Things Caucus last year, Congress has barely given us a hint of how it intends to do so. Meanwhile, more and more connected devices are quickly entering the market, meaning the most pressing questions will likely go unanswered until people are being victimized and companies are facing precedent-setting lawsuits.

The value of any piece of consumer technology ultimately boils down to whether it empowers or disempowers us. The Internet of Things may hold promise, but right now it is uniquely and dangerously poised to do the latter — especially if we’re too quick to confuse progress with allowing companies to colonize our tools, bodies and private spaces with cheap gimmicks.

3D: DISMAL, DISAPPOINTING, DISASTER




My Open Kimono's blog post on 8/15/2010 warned about the 3D craze as a trending and short lived fad. That prediction is now becoming reality.

The article linked here details the downturn in feature 3D films, suggesting it was a fading fad as it was in the 1950s. Yes Virginia, history always repeats itself!

While the Guardian article focuses on films, it fails to extend the story to 3D TV. This is a huge warning sign for the set manufacturers the likes of SONY, Samsung, LG, Panasonic, Vizio, etc. that sunk billions into the 3D craze. It's so over.

Advice to the CEOs who signed off on the manufacturing folly .... cut your losses. The only potential for 3D remains with gamers.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

THE 3D JACKPOT



The warning signals are out and they do not bode well for 3D TV or 3D film makers.


Having already invested billions, electronics manufacturers, production companies and Hollywood are bracing for a win or lose jackpot.


But what’s at the end of the rainbow may very likely turn out to be fools gold.


A report by the Financial Times yesterday pointed to a nervous set at Hollywood as many of the 3D releases simply flopped. The hype of Avatar, Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans did not spill over to releases like Cats and Dogs which was panned by critics.


Overlooking the constraints of consumer spending in an economic downturn, 3D movie releases demand a 50% premium over 2D ticket prices. What are they thinking?


Short term vision has blurred reality as greed set in. 3D is a dimension looking for an audience that exists for the short term ….. until the novelty wears off.


And while Hollywood sits on the edge of their theater seat, companies the likes of LG, Sony and Samsung dove into the third dimension with huge investments in hardware.


Gizmodo reports that the sale of 3D TV units in Japan are not up to par. One year into marketing the units, prices are down by 20% and sales are not nearly predictive of a viable market. Yet the manufacturers are blindly predicting "millions of sets" will be sold in the coming year.


Say it often enough and you might come to believe it's true!


IDo believe in 3D, I DO believe in 3D, I DO believe in 3D ......

PREDICTING FLOPS - 3DTV



Several months ago we commented on the lemming effect of television manufacturers running over the 3DTV cliff. Not withstanding the expense, the need to wear glasses (and have extra pairs around for guests), and the cost of the glasses we predicted (and still do) the loss of hundreds of millions by companies the likes of Sony, Samsung and LG among others.

Major motion picture directors and movie critics panned 3D as a "waste of a dimension".

Today, a Japanese consumer survey may have hammered the first nail in the coffin.

Here are the results and a partial lift from website VG247 ....

Sony is preparing to stake its case for 3D gaming at Develop in Brighton this month, despite a Japanese survey today showing that nearly 70 percent of those questioned have no intention of upgrading to 3D TVs this year. Why? Because the glasses are turning them off.

Respondents blamed the need for wear glasses, costly TV sets and scarcity of general content for lack of interest, the survey by Kakaku.com showed (via Reuters).

The numbers aren’t small, either: 70 percent said the hassle of wearing special glasses put them off, 57 percent said prices were too high and close to 40 percent said there was not enough 3D content.

Of those questioned, 67.4 percent said they were not interested in buying a 3D TV while only 31.2 percent were considering or wanted to purchase one, the survey said.

The online survey ran June 10-16, receiving responses from 8,957 people.

Gaming firms such as Sony and EA pushed 3D titles in their E3 press conferences this year, with Sony in particular making big efforts to evangelise the fledgling feature.

Sony continues western 3D push

Unperturbed by the news from Japan, however, Sony said today it’s to showcase PS3 3D at Develop later this month.

Enough said.

SAMSUNG SINGING SONY'S SONG



Samsung, Sony and LG are in the throws of a cut-throat battle for the lead position on the introduction and launch of 3DTV sets in the U.S. market.

In a brilliant (or lucky) move by Samsung's ad agency, Leo Burnett, , they secured the rights to the music track that will likely become the hit song of the summer of 2010, running the catchy and addictive tune across the Samsung product line.

The song? Soul Sister by the artist Train. If you don't recall the title, watch and/or listen to one of the commercials, the music video or the music widget below.

Here's the rub. The song and the artist fall under the Sony Music Columbia record label. So.... why would Samsung allow its agency to subsidize the royalty coffers of its nemesis and continue to create buzz around the song through the summer?

While this isn't the first time Samsung has teamed up with Sony for the launch of new products (the launch of LCD sets was a cooperative effort), was this an "ooops" by Leo Burnett or just a smart move?

And, was (is) Samsung aware?