[nfais-l] NFAIS Enotes, 2013, No. 5 - Chromecast

[jilloneill at nfais.org]

NFAIS Enotes, 2013, No. 5
Written and compiled by Jill O’Neill
 
Frustration-Free Packaging: Chromecast
 


Despite what you may have heard, Google’s $35 Chromecast device really solves only a minor irritation of modern society -- that of how best to transfer streaming digital content from the single user’s small screen (primarily a solitary viewing experience) to a larger screen that enables a crowd-viewing experience. As announced, Chromecast seems primarily aimed at the consumer entertainment market and is primarily competitive with Amazon and Apple for those viewers (see: [http://chrome.blogspot.com/2013/07/from-tvs-to-tablets-everything-you-love.html] http://chrome.blogspot.com/2013/07/from-tvs-to-tablets-everything-you-love.html).


 
The Chromecast device plugs into the individual’s flat-screen television (HDMI port required) which subsequently allows it to be detected on a wireless network in the viewer’s home. Set-up requires the Chrome browser and an app downloadable to a mobile phone or an extension to the Chrome browser on a laptop, but once that relatively simple tap dance is performed, the user can select content available through Google (YouTube or Google Play) and Netflix. (More content deals are in the works; see [http://www.technologyreview.com/news/517406/google-launches-a-dongle-to-bring-online-video-to-tv/] http://www.technologyreview.com/news/517406/google-launches-a-dongle-to-bring-online-video-to-tv/).  Press the digital icon and the Chromecast hardware picks up the local wireless signal and streams video to the big screen.  I tested it out on my home wireless network and the system worked largely as advertised. No stuttering, no pixelation, nothing to interrupt television program immersion. However, should the device not work as advertised, questions and support requirements are handled through Google Groups ([https://groups.google.com/forum/#!categories/chromebook-central/chromecast] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!categories/chromebook-central/chromecast) as Chromecast comes with little or no printed documentation.


 
As one commentator noted, “...it has enough solution power to nudge some cable-cutting fence-sitters. Its simple setup and accommodation to existing habits provide a compelling convenience factor, and convenience is what the media distribution business is built upon.” 
(see: [http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/02/is-chromecast-the-little-dongle-that-could-change-things/] http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/02/is-chromecast-the-little-dongle-that-could-change-things/).
 


Says the reviewer who actually had used the device for three weeks before discussing its value, “The device takes a lot of friction out of bringing online video to the living room, and in turn makes TV watching a lot more enjoyable.”  ([http://gigaom.com/2013/08/14/honest-chromecast-review/] http://gigaom.com/2013/08/14/honest-chromecast-review/).   John Blossom of Shore Communications has been hosting a weekly Chromecast Friday event -- a Google Hang-Out that is subsequently uploaded to YouTube; the broadcast features discussions of actual usage and value at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg8O13xByrA] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg8O13xByrA. 


 
In my personal experience, the system works well streaming from Netflix to a 32” high definition television. It does not, however, work with Amazon’s Instant Streaming Video even when watching through the Chrome browser. There have been mixed reports in the media coverage about this with some reporters claiming that it was possible although the streaming video would break up on occasion. I couldn’t even get it to that point.




The Chromecast device can easily be incorporated into any number of environments -- classrooms, conference rooms, laboratories, auditoriums -- where availability of screens and use of video is the more efficient means of imparting either a chunk or a corpus of knowledge to a group. 


 
There are other devices similar to the Chromecast in functionality if not in size. The Roku Streaming Stick  is a popular device, as a streaming option, and is similar in many respects to the Chromecast. The Chromecast is smaller in size and less expensive, but the Roku has a superior range of agreements with content providers, including Netflix. (For more on Roku, see [http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/roku-streaming-stick1.htm] http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/roku-streaming-stick1.htm). One key difference however is that Roku uses Mobile High Definition Links (MHL), an emerging standard interface(in the sense of enabling two things to interact). It has been the favored approach by such hardware manufacturers as Sony, Samsung, Toshiba, etc., for enabling mobile devices to “talk” to high definition televisions.  MHL is less common than the HDMI that Chromecast uses, the key difference being that MHL doesn’t require a separate power source whereas HDMI does.  Inclusion of a MHL port on a television (insofar as I can tell) is an indicator of a “smart” television, whereas HDMI is present on the more common “dumb” monitor. 
 


As noted above, Netflix was one of the services whose content was immediately accessible through the use of Chromecast. I had just assumed that was due to Netflix’s current need for a powerful partner to help fend off Amazon’s Prime Instant Video service, streaming similar entertainment content through their Kindle Fire. (Remember that when it launched initially, the Kindle Fire was characterized by Jeff Bezos as a “service” rather than as a device (see: [http://seekingalpha.com/article/296777-bezos-kindle-fire-is-an-end-to-end-service] http://seekingalpha.com/article/296777-bezos-kindle-fire-is-an-end-to-end-service).  But I was struck by some research stats released in July by the Michigan start-up company, Deepfield,when they wrote of a parallel that existed between the two companies. Wrote Deepfield on their blog, “When we last published some large-scale measurements in 2010, Google represented (a now seemingly small) 6% of Internet traffic. Today, Google now accounts for nearly 25% of Internet traffic on average. Only Netflix has larger bandwidth, but Netflix peaks last only for a few hours each evening during prime time hours and during Netflix cache update periods in the early morning.” (see: [http://www.deepfield.net/2013/07/google-sets-new-internet-record/] http://www.deepfield.net/2013/07/google-sets-new-internet-record/).  Netflix and Google have much in common with regard to bandwidth.  As a point of comparison, according to research also done by Deepfield and noted in Wired, Amazon a year ago represented only 1% of all internet traffic in North America, although that statistic was generated prior to the launch of the Kindle Fire HD. (see: [http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/04/amazon-cloud/] http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/04/amazon-cloud/).


 
Amazon and Google are key players in switching traffic across the Internet and video is one of the key content forms that is being switched. The bulk of Google’s 25% share of North American Internet traffic comes from YouTube (see: [http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/07/google-internet-traffic/] http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/07/google-internet-traffic/). Their bandwidth usage puts them at the mercy in some respects of the bigtime telecomms, such as AT&T and Verizon, putting potential chokeholds on the flow of content.


 
That’s why in recent months we’ve seen both Amazon and Google dabbling in the creation of their own pipelines for streaming. Google of course is pushing its own fiber service ([https://fiber.google.com/] fiber.google.com). Amazon in early July was seen to be testing out its own WiFi supply system (TLPS or terrestial low-power service) with third-party partner Globalstar. TLPS is an area that gets very technical very fast (well beyond my understanding) but I refer those interested to this GigaOm piece ([http://gigaom.com/2013/08/23/amazons-wireless-network-trials-are-no-mystery-its-testing-licensed-wi-fi/] http://gigaom.com/2013/08/23/amazons-wireless-network-trials-are-no-mystery-its-testing-licensed-wi-fi/) as the links contained in that article appear to lead to in-depth discussions.


 
We’re not just talking about long form video content either when we talk about streaming video. Of rising interest are the apps available to consumers for creating video. Twitter’s Vine, an app for both iOS and Android devices, allows the viewer to capture and view six second loops of motion and sound. Announced in January, the app has grown in popularity and has been downloaded by more than 40 million users.  Facebook, which acquired photo app Instagram in the second half of 2012  fought back by having Instagram offer a version that allows users 15 seconds rather than 6. The other key differentiator is that Instagram videos don’t loop.  For the record, Instagram has twice to three times the user base of Vine (130 million users).  VentureBeat offers a quick rundown of the best instances of use for Vine and Instagram videos(see: [http://venturebeat.com/2013/08/12/when-to-use-vine-and-when-to-use-instagram/] http://venturebeat.com/2013/08/12/when-to-use-vine-and-when-to-use-instagram/). The condensed message is that Instagram is better used for campaigns or series of messages while Vine is more suited to real time engagement.  This is commonplace stuff for those with mobile phones.


 
These tools are now in the hands of the rising population and they see no marvel in such tools -- only the basic value in use of the tools.


 
In the mainstream media coverage, it is frequently suggested that Chromecast is an indication that streaming video is no longer just the system of choice for poverty-stricken youngsters who can’t afford cable. Streaming is mainstream. Just as Vine and Instagram indicate that video is as common today as Microsoft Word documents, Chromecast (and all the other devices of that ilk) are indicative that streaming is breaking up current models of broadcast and bundled cable packages. 
 
 
The biggest challenge facing streaming media at the moment appears to be the business model.  Those living in New York City are well aware of the current tiff between CBS and the primary cable provider for the city, Time Warner. Ken Auletta used that tiff recently to note the long-term disruption over recent decades of the television industry and the difficulty felt by the cable-system owners and content providers in reframing their value proposition (see: [http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2013/08/cbs-time-warner-cable-and-the-disruption-of-tv.html] http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2013/08/cbs-time-warner-cable-and-the-disruption-of-tv.htm).  Chromecast is merely another piece of hardware aimed at furthering that disruption while not losing the advertising revenue to other competitors.
 


Earlier this year, Wired had run a short article discussing the status of streaming video, referencing research that said “the amount of video watched on tablet devices and mobile phones in 2012 increased by 100 percent over the previous year, and also that advertisers are taking notice of the shift to online video viewership, with U.S. ad spending on streaming video content climbing 46 percent to reach $2.93 billion last year alone.” (see: [http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/03/streaming-video-advertising/] http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/03/streaming-video-advertising/). 


 
One analyst over at Motley Fool characterized Chromecast as being merely another data-gathering device for Google with regard to getting a better handle on what users were viewing.  This in turn will permit Google to better target advertising tied to popular progams (see:
[http://beta.fool.com/hjcranford/2013/08/02/is-chromecast-really-a-cable-killer/41889/] http://beta.fool.com/hjcranford/2013/08/02/is-chromecast-really-a-cable-killer/41889/).


 
With Chromecast, Google went after the largest screen in the average consumer’s household -- the social screen of the television. Neither Amazon nor Apple (with its Apple TV) has had any notable success in addressing this particular screen.  Analysts across a broad range of industries have all concluded that the tough issue thwarting the Internet companies (with regard to television) is the content distribution model involved -- the studios, the telecommunications providers, and the cable services themselves. There’s the old business model for pay-TV and whatever it is that the Internet utility companies are proposing as an alternative. Forbes thinks that the Chromecast is the way in which consumers will happily transition between the inconvenient and inflexible cable service model and the more fluid and convenient future of viewing on-screen content. However, even Forbes is still talking about it being a subscription model (see: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthickey/2013/07/30/source-chromecast-store-may-bundle-content-from-streaming-partners-into-one-package/] http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthickey/2013/07/30/source-chromecast-store-may-bundle-content-from-streaming-partners-into-one-package/).


 
However, according to the Wall Street Journal, the cable companies themselves are beginning to doubt the future of bundled content -- their version of our community’s “Big Deal” -- and are anticipating more a future surrounding the supply of broadband (see: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323420604578647961424594702.html] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323420604578647961424594702.html).


 
The Chromecast is primarily just a wedge that Google is using to break apart the siloes of content that Google wants to serve up profitably to its market. Or to use another metaphor, it’s a sleek can-opener that opens overly restrictive packaging surrounding content that the consumer wants to be able to get at for their own purposes.


 
Which brings me to the relevance this topic has for the NFAIS membership. It’s been more than ten years since the publication of Kenneth Frazier’s article in D-Lib Magazine, “The Librarian’s Dilemma” in which he called upon the library community to stop signing licenses for publishers’ so-called Big Deals (see: [http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march01/frazier/03frazier.html] http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march01/frazier/03frazier.html).  Over that period of time, there have been regular discussions of just how close we might be to the demise of the ‘Big Deal’ as a business model for the information community.  The February 2012 issue of Serials Review ran a “Balance Point” column that gathered together responses from 13 industry experts and the abstract of the column notes “It is evident from the submissions that the idea of opting out of the ‘big deal,’ or at least the debates surrounding the discussions, is gaining momentum. The problems are important and often controversial. Most authors agree that the ‘big deal’ is not dead yet, and some think it may never die completely.”  (see:
[https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/12858/1-s2.0-S0098791311001778-main.pdf?sequence=1] https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/12858/1-s2.0-S0098791311001778-main.pdf?sequence=1).

 
 
In that Serials Review column, EBSCO Vice President of Academic, Law & Public Library Markets Kittie S. Henderson, wrote: “When viewed in a library context, the ‘big deal’ evolved very quickly. As in any evolutionary process, it contained vestiges of the original model (historical spend based pricing for example).  I think that elements of the big deal, such as access to what is perceived by a library as critical mass of content will remain. The business model for that content is changing, however, be it tiered pricing based upon institutional size or use, article-based pricing, diverting funds formerly used for traditional subscriptions to open access, or a new variable that we haven’t seen yet. “
 


Many of the Big Deals look like premium cable offerings; there are always titles or channels included in the package that the subscriber will never view and therefore resents being asked to pay for. By contrast, the various flavors of open access -- whether applied to articles, books, or data sets -- may resemble the Chromecast option. Frustration-free packaging to the research environment.  But just like Chromecast, open access might be something of a necessary bridge to the next level of advanced information services. Between entrepreneurial spirit and sophisticated software, a new kind of approach will emerge and once again persuade users that value-add really is worth paying for.


 
If you are interested in learning more about Google activities, register for the NFAIS webinar The World According to Google: Understanding Google’s Expanding Content Ecosystem (September 19, 2013, 11:00am – 12:30pm EDST) in which John Blossom, President, Shore Communications, will provide an update.  Go to [http://nfais.org/event?eventID=526] http://nfais.org/event?eventID=526 for more information.


 
**************************************************
 
2013 NFAIS Supporters
 
Access Innovations, Inc.
 
Accessible Archives, Inc.
 
American Psychological Association/PsycINFO
 
American Theological Library Association
 
Annual Reviews
 
CAS
 
CrossRef
 
Data Conversion Laboratory, Inc.
 
Defense Technical Information Center
 
Getty Research Institute
 
The H. W. Wilson Foundation
 
Information Today, Inc.
 
IFIS
 
Modern Language Association
 
OCLC
 
Philosopher’s Information Center
 
ProQuest
 
RSuite CMS
 
Scope e-Knowledge Center
 
TEMIS, Inc.
 
Thomson Reuters IP & Science
 
Thomson Reuters IP Solutions
 
Unlimited Priorities LLC
 
 
********************************
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/pipermail/nfais-l/attachments/20130827/7762f41b/attachment.html>