IVR Deconstructed

While this seems like science fiction, it’s not. Facial recognition software has supposedly been kicking around since the 60s, although it hasn’t hit the mainstream yet. Until now.

In an article yesterday, the Atlantic reported that a study at Carnegie Mellon University has successfully demonstrated facial recognition based in the clouds—unencumbered by database restrictions because the entire Internet is the database.

Using a facial recognition program called PittPatt, researchers “were able to not only match unidentified profile photos from a dating website (where the vast majority of users operate pseudonymously) with positively identified Facebook photos, but also match pedestrians on a North American college campus with their online identities.”

In the past, searches like these were limited to databases such as those used by law enforcement agencies. If people weren’t in the database, the system couldn’t find them.

Not so anymore. Facial recognition scans are a reality now, and fast identification (within a minute) through the Internet is a reality now as well.

It’s something law enforcement agencies and governments are, naturally, very interested in. According to the Atlantic, PittPatt started as a research project and became its own company in 2004. When it did, the U.S. intelligence community invested.

“At the time, U.S. intelligence was obsessed with using advanced facial recognition to identify terrorists,” wrote Jason Mick of DailyTech. “So the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) poured millions into PittPatt.”

Others were interested too. In July, Google bought PittPatt. (Need I point out how unnerving it is that Google—the Internet search goliath—now owns this technology? You too?)

In any case, facial recognition is already in use in the security and surveillance sector:

According to the Business Insider, police use an iPhone app to ID people on the streets. DMVs use a biometric database for IDs. Las Vegas casinos and Adidas stores are starting to use it for targeted advertising.

The SceneTap app uses cameras in bars to show what the crowd is like, so users can better decide where they want to go for the night. And in Japan, facial recognition is all over the place already, “from vending machines that make recommendations to truck stops that gauge the tiredness of drivers.”

So, no, it’s not science fiction. And I’m not sure how I feel about it. (Not that there’s anything I could do, anyway.)

It just seems weird. Eventually we’ll have a whole second identity in the clouds for everyone to see (one that’s way more in-depth than what governments have on us now). We won’t be anonymous anymore. Where will one identity end and the next begin?

Can’t get enough of the “retro” shows like Mad Men? Do the Zombies on The Walking Dead make your night? What is The Office going to be like with Andy Bernard taking Michael Scott’s place? And what DID happen to Peter on Fringe?

The beginning of fall (which technically just started last Fri) also marks the beginning of a new TV season. Along with all of the old shows and characters we have grown to know and love, we will be treated to a plethora of new shows that could be our new Arrested Development or Lost (the greatest two shows on television in my humble opinion).

Typically, broadcasting networks debut all of their shows, new episodes of their old shows and pilots of their new shows, during one week in mid to late September. This is when the ratings war truly heats up and shows make it or break it.

For years, the television industry, especially broadcasting TV, has seen their ratings decline significantly. Viewers (especially on the coasts) simply aren’t tuning in as much as they used to. Combined with DVRs, Tivos, cable televisions, and significant programming options being offered by every market, television shows face stiff competition in winning viewers’ minds and hearts and advertisers’ dollars.

Why does this matter? It all boils down to money. TV studios spend millions of dollars purchasing, producing and distributing these shows. They hope they are investing in a hit that will allow them not only to break even on their budget, but to turn a profit. This is done by attracting advertiser dollars, which really only happens when a show is worth the money based on either their demographic or overall ratings.

These shows are often a dime a dozen. These days everyone can get snazzy movie actors to star in their movie that possesses a fairly compelling plot. Television execs go through months of screening their new shows with test audiences in an attempt to figure out how their show will be perceived by test audiences.

If this sounds like a tricky, competitive and often times frightening process, it is. How are new shows, and for that matter, older shows supposed to distinguish themselves in an industry that is saturated in shows that look and feel the same as all the rest.

Two easy answers: One, writers must pen their work with creative, original thoughts in mind. Secondly, networks need to effectively and efficiently promote their shows. So how does this work in an era where constant new technology and technology updates are occurring continuously?

An article by Mashable today elaborates on just that. Networks have increasingly turned to social networking to promote their shows, understanding that it attracts a huge audience of dedicated followers constantly checking their profiles, wall, news feed and messages.

This is an ingenious way to reach a huge number of people all at once, and also allows for creativity and ingenuity in the advertising process! It will be a couple of weeks until we can definitely rule on how shows did, but in the mean time, we can engage with our new favorite and potential favorite programs that are all new for the first time since May!

In the tech industry, it’s a compliment when one company sues another for copyright infringement—it means the suing company sees its competitor as a threat.

But many people feel things have gotten out of hand, especially in the highly competitive and innovation-dependent mobile device market. Apple is suing HTC. HTC is suing Apple. Apple is suing Motorola. Nokia is suing Apple. And, of course, Apple and Samsung are suing each other, all over the globe.

Apple struck a big blow recently against Samsung, it’s closet rival in the mobile smartphone and tablet market, by getting the new Samsung Tab and certain phones banned in Australia, Germany and the Netherlands. The two are in court in Asia as well.

Many people blame patent law for what they consider overzealous infringement suits and a dysfunctional system overall. They say patent offices worldwide provide patents to vague, low-quality ideas and ideas that are too similar to others, making lawsuits inevitable.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) just released a report that illustrates the problem—

“The quality of patent filings has fallen dramatically over the past two decades,” the OECD said. “The rush to protect even minor improvements in products or services is overburdening patent offices. This slows the time to market for true innovations and reduces the potential for breakthrough inventions.”

And then there’s patent trolls. A derogatory term, patent troll refers to a company that licenses patents it never intends to develop—also known as a non-practicing entity (NPE).

These companies rush to patent as many ideas as possible, with the hopes that they can either sell or sue over the patent later on—rather than actually inventing, this is how they make money. Hence the derogatory “troll” moniker. They’re favorites with the Silicon Valley crowd (sarcasm).

According to CNNMoney citing a Boston University study, patent trolls cost innovators $500 billion between 1990 and 2010, based on innovators’ stock performance following lawsuits by NPEs. The study reported that the average lawsuit cost innovators $122 million.

Patent trolls have claimed they protect small innovators who sell them their patents. Some of them have said that they’re innovators themselves. But the Boston University study debunked that notion, according to CNNMoney.

Only 2% of NPE profits went to the small innovators they purportedly protect, and R&D expenses at the “innovating” NPEs only accounted for 2% of the $500 billion in revenue lost between 1990 and 2010.

President Obama just signed a new patent law that decides patents based on who files first rather than who created first, which brings the U.S. in line with how most other nations do it. According to Gizmodo, the law will supposedly make the whole process faster and more efficient, but it won’t affect patent troll lawsuits.

So, unfortunately, it looks like the Apple vs. Samsung drama will continue. Apple is set to unveil the iPhone 5 next week. Samsung, still reeling from having its new tab and smartphones banned, is seeking an injunction to block sales of the iPhone 5.

In any case, it’s always interesting. Dysfunctional, but interesting…

Just yesterday, we published a post on e-publishing and how Amazon is changing the face of the publishing industry through technological innovation and integration. Just today Amazon announced the release of the Kindle Fire, which according to ReadWriteWeb will be a 7-inch full-color tablet.

There has been a bit of confusion over what product and brand is in direct competition with this device, with opinion split over whether it is the iPad by Apple or the Nook by Barnes & Noble. The price point for the device comes in at an extremely low $199, much cheaper than the iPad and significantly lower than the Nook. Amazon collaborated with Android to develop a personalized operating system that will power the device. It’ll be equipped with a music player and video player, and it’ll give users on-demand access to the Amazon by Android Appstore.

As a Nook Color owner myself, the device sounds a bit underwhelming as a competitor to either the Nook or the iPad, but it’s sure to be a best seller for those already hooked on the Kindle. According to some industry experts, Amazon pushed the device out just in time for the holiday season, but a more advanced version will be released in the first quarter of 2012.

While the verdict is still out on what exactly the Kindle’s place in the market will be, one thing is overwhelmingly clear: e-readers are swiftly becoming one of the most popular technology purchases. Publishers and vendors alike must adapt to this model of distribution to remain competitive.

The question then becomes how this actually affects the popularity and prominence of literature itself. Another ReadWriteWeb article details how e-readers are making it increasingly more difficult to ban books. Each year the American Library Association publishes a comprehensive list of the most controversial books found in both libraries and public schools.

First Amendment laws exist in the U.S. to protect books from being banned (that is, actual physical removal from libraries and schools while making them much more difficult to obtain). However, many books are challenged on a yearly basis with the intent of making them less accessible to the public and much harder to borrow or purchase.

Anyone who has used an e-reader knows that most books are available for purchase instantaneously with a simple touch of a button. There is no need to venture out to a store or order a physical copy online and wait for it to ship. Doing a quick search of the Barnes & Noble store on the Nook, eight out of ten of last year’s banned books are readily available for purchase.

Not only are e-readers changing how people consume books, magazines and newspapers, they are changing the scope and type of content accessible to anyone who owns an e-reader and has an Internet connection. While the debate rages on over who has the best e-reader and how the e-reader is changing and challenging the publishing industry, one thing is certain: books of all types from authors of every gender, sexual orientation and nationality are more easily available to a larger number of people than ever before. To most people, that is never a bad thing.

Despite the smartphone and job in the tech industry, I still enjoy paper magazines and books. I stare at a computer enough at work. I’d rather hold a book in my hand instead of a tablet on my bus ride home.

But more and more people on my bus are using Kindles and NOOKs and tablets to read. And the e-readers have cases that look and feel like books, which I think is a nice touch.

In any case, the publishing industry is just another industry undergoing a major transition at the hands of technology. The traditional publishing houses are fearful that Amazon’s new foray into e-publishing and paper publishing will create a monopoly and destroy the publishing industry.

In the music industry, pirating initiated the transition that has led to Spotify and Pandora and other music services that are either free or significantly cheaper than buying CDs. The music labels are having to adjust to the way people are listening to music now, as well as how the musicians are promoting themselves—on the Internet.

Whether e-publishing will ruin the publishing industry remains to be seen. But there’s no doubt that digital publishing has changed much of the paper-publishing world.

All the major newspapers now have online versions as well as print versions. Even though I’d rather read a book I can hold, I’d much rather get my news online than carry around a big newspaper (the ink of which bleeds onto your hands).

Just like in the music industry, scores of writers are turning to the web to get their work to the public. And while they find it more time- and work-intensive, they also retain complete creative control. Traditionally, publishers can influence a work and how it’s released and promoted.

Now Amazon is getting into the mix. By circumventing the publishing house and bookstores, Amazon provides better deals and more creative freedom for the writers, according to CNNMoney. This, in turn, translates to earlier book releases (e-books can come out six months before the print copy) and also cheaper prices.

In essence, Amazon (a major player) is bucking the system by teaming up with the little guys (the writers). Which is weird because Amazon has also helped put small bookstores out of business. It’s an ironic dichotomy.