Fire-Wired Blog

This article was first published by  dmcityview.com It appears within 10 years the Internet will be one giant television. Every major Web entity is creating video content. Connections are slowly climbing to speeds that will easily stream virtually anything. It seems the only obstacle without a clear path to get around is organization. How will users be able to aggregate all the disparate content they’ve subscribed to across the Internet? I see an answer in Plex, a Web content DVR. Last week, HBO finally announced it was getting into the Web streaming arena. The premium cable channel will continue broadcasting on television, however, non-cable subscribers can now access HBO content online through a Web-only subscription. With this announcement, the list of major media providers that offer gated streaming video is getting quite crowded. In addition to HBO, there is Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, YouTube, Yahoo, Sony, AOL and more than 100 others. Searching content across all of these sit...

This article was first published by  dmcityview.com Of all the innovations and gifts Bill Gates gave the world of technology, the one that has crossed over more than any other is the idea that “Content is King.” Written as part of an open essay in 1996, Gates’ proclamed that in order to succeed in the burgeoning online consumer space, websites and services needed to provide original and alluring content. This “Moses on the Mount” decree is as true today as it was 20 years ago. I hate this phrase. “Content is King” has become the war cry of editors, news directors, and basically every content supervisor the world, and half of them have no clue what it means. To these people, it’s a way of saying, “Do your job,” or “What have you done for me lately?” But for a more accurate understanding, one needs to look no farther than the battle for online eyeballs. Every online media giant wants your attention. Netflix wants your subscription dollars; Google, YouTube, Hulu, Yahoo want your...

This article was first published by  dmcityview.com The last few months have been extremely tumultuous pertaining to the future of the Internet. Prior to a federal Appeals Court ruling in January, all Web content was legally required to be treated the same: Streaming video needed to be loaded on users’ computers at the same speed as someone reading a simple blog. However in January, a Washington, D.C.,-based Appeals Court abolished that rule, stating that the Federal Communications Commission misclassified Internet Service Providers and thereby lacked the legal justification to set such a rule. This immediately changed the landscape of the Internet. The FCC has come up with a new set of Net neutrality guidelines. Under its proposed “Open Internet” rules, Web content can not be blocked or throttled by ISPs, but providers are allowed to reach agreements with Web properties for faster connection times. The main difference between Net neutrality and open Internet is the new prior...

This article was first published by  dmcityview.com For tech geeks everywhere, doomsday came last week. On Jan.14, a federal appeals court struck down government regulations commonly referred to as “net neutrality,” the laws that forced Internet service providers (ISPs) to treat all Web traffic the same. Whether you were reading a blog post, sending an email or streaming a movie, net neutrality meant ISPs had to load all sites at the same rate and not some content over others. Confused? Net neutrality is like that, but at the heart of the discussion know that this means money. Think of it in terms of tiered TV subscriptions. Cable providers such as Mediacom or DIRECTV can host certain channels and not others based on the fee to carry them, beyond that, they can charge customers more for premium channels such as HBO or Showtime. With net neutrality potentially dead, ISPs can tier Internet sites and content in much the same way. Imagine Internet service where email and news sit...

This article was first published by dmcityview.com Every few years a technological innovation comes along that is so obvious it’s infuriating that you didn’t come up with it yourself. A few recent examples include eBay, the iPod and YouTube, each of which revolutionized its field and practically changed the world. The beauty of these ingenious tech tools is that virtually no one can see them coming, and as soon as they hit, you know immediately that you need it. Two weeks ago I felt this same impulse with the announcement of Google Chromecast, a key-sized device that allows you to wirelessly stream almost any Web content from any computing device to your TV. Streaming content wirelessly from computing devices to television is nothing new. Apple TV has offered this capability for years. What is new is Chromecast’s ultraportability and price. For only $35, users can basically carry their entire video or audio library in their pocket and stream it to any TV or stereo system that ...

This article was first published by dmcityview.com Twenty-one years ago, Bruce Springsteen’s “Human Touch” album featured the song “57 Channels (and Nothin’ On).” If Bruce had saved this song for 2013, the title would be somewhere closer to “1,557 Channels (and Nothin’ On).” Even worse, all those wasted channels cost cable and satellite subscriptions far more than $50 per month, and in many cases $100 per month. For those brave enough to “cut the cord,” streaming Internet video services are becoming more of a viable option. Earlier this month, Roku, one of the most popular streaming service providers out there, released a new version of its set-top box. With only a one-time cost of $99, the Roku 3 is ready to stream content almost immediately after hook up. The device streams in 1080p HD and offers a powerful search feature that scans more than 750 streaming channels including Netflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon Cloud Player. Roku 3 also has a remote that comes with a headphone jack, w...

Buying an iPad still makes little sense. Two years ago when the iPad was introduced I was at work with a bunch of fellow Apple fans. We were on Apple.com in a matter of seconds to check it out. Everyone was in awe of it... except me. I get that it means a lot for multi-media presentations and sales people but for the average person it's just an expensive add-on. iPhones and Androids I get; a computer in your pocket that you can use at any time to play games, access information and it allows you to keep every virtual thing you own in one place. An iPad... sure you can game on it (kind of) and you can watch movies on it (awkwardly) but for me why do you have to have an iPad? The Kindle Fire I get. It doesn't cram every little Android feature onto it. You're gonna use it to watch read books, movies, and surf the web. So it doesn't have GPS or a camera, okay... Isn't that better suited for your phone? Do you want to pull out something the size of a text...