Walt Disney Co. is close to unveiling technology that it says will enable entertainment companies to adapt their business models to a new reality in which consumers increasingly rely on computers and cell phones in place of DVD players and TVs.
Not only cellphones as a viewing platform, I hope.
The technology, code-named Keychest, could contribute to a shift in what it means for a consumer to own a movie or a TV show, by redefining ownership as access rights, not physical possession.
The technology would allow consumers to pay a single price for permanent access to a movie or TV show across multiple digital platforms and devices—from the Web, to mobile gadgets like iPhones and cable services that allow on-demand viewing. It could also facilitate other services such as online movie subscriptions.
No more scratched discs, cracked cases, or forgotten items. But server capacity and broadband throughput will have to be quite robust.
Keychest aims to address two of the biggest hurdles blocking widespread consumer adoption of movie downloads: the difficulty of playing a movie back on devices other than a PC or laptop, and limited storage space on those computers' hard drives. As such, Keychest could put Disney on a collision course with an initiative, known as the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem, or DECE, that has similar goals.
Keychest uses the same "cloud computing" logic that underlies Web-based applications, such as Google Docs, permitting users to store files and photographs on remote Internet servers and access them from anywhere, rather than keeping them on their own computers.
I use Google apps, and like the ubiquitous accessibility.
As an aside, I looked up the word ubiquitous, and saw this term: Ubiquitous computing (ubicomp) is a post-desktop model of human-computer interaction in which information processing has been thoroughly integrated into everyday objects and activities. In the course of ordinary activities, someone "using" ubiquitous computing engages many computational devices and systems simultaneously, and may not necessarily even be aware that they are doing so. This model is usually considered an advancement from the desktop paradigm.
The rollout of the new technology comes at a critical juncture for the movie industry. DVD sales, once a financial mainstay for Hollywood, have fallen as much as 25% at some studios. The decline in DVD revenue has undermined the business model Hollywood has relied on for more than a decade.
DVDs can be awful, but I imagine that mobile computing has had a very significant impact on DVD sales.
Bob Chapek, president of home entertainment at Disney Studios, says the company doesn't expect Keychest to deliver tangible financial results for five years. But he predicts that in combination with Blu-ray, digital distribution "should bring our category back up to a healthy state where we can expect growth in the future." The company declined to name other companies that may have agreed to participate. Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs is Disney's largest shareholder, and people in the entertainment industry say it would be reasonable to infer that Apple would cooperate with such an initiative.
Aside from controlling Apple, Jobs is also Disney's largest shareholder, courtesy of his sale of Pixar to Disney some years ago.
Keychest and DECE are competing for the same market; DECE is accepted by 5 major studios, as well as Comcast and Intel. Interesting idea; tiome will tell.
Showing posts with label Future. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Future. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
5 possible technologies
Fascinating look at the future of energy. Article appeared in today's Journal; the online version does not have the illustrations, so I searched them out.
It's a tall order: Over the next few decades, the world will need to wean itself from dependence on fossil fuels and drastically reduce greenhouse gases. Current technology will take us only so far; major breakthroughs are required.
Even WSJ admits the reduction of greenhouse gases will need to be drastically reduced.
SPACE-BASED SOLAR POWER
For more than three decades, visionaries have imagined tapping solar power where the sun always shines—in space. If we could place giant solar panels in orbit around the Earth, and beam even a fraction of the available energy back to Earth, they could deliver nonstop electricity to any place on the planet.
Found graphic in website of National Space Society. This next one is from New Scientist, the source for the WSJ article.
The technology may sound like science fiction, but it's simple: Solar panels in orbit about 22,000 miles up beam energy in the form of microwaves to earth, where it's turned into electricity and plugged into the grid. (The low-powered beams are considered safe.) A ground receiving station a mile in diameter could deliver about 1,000 megawatts—enough to power on average about 1,000 U.S. homes.
The cost of sending solar collectors into space is the biggest obstacle, so it's necessary to design a system lightweight enough to require only a few launches. A handful of countries and companies aim to deliver space-based power as early as a decade from now.
ADVANCED CAR BATTERIES
Electrifying vehicles could slash petroleum use and help clean the air (if electric power shifts to low-carbon fuels like wind or nuclear). But it's going to take better batteries.
Lithium-ion batteries, common in laptops, are favored for next-generation plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. They're more powerful than other auto batteries, but they're expensive and still don't go far on a charge; the Chevy Volt, a plug-in hybrid coming next year, can run about 40 miles on batteries alone. Ideally, electric cars will get closer to 400 miles on a charge. While improvements are possible, lithium-ion's potential is limited.
One alternative, lithium-air, promises 10 times the performance of lithium-ion batteries and could deliver about the same amount of energy, pound for pound, as gasoline. A lithium-air battery pulls oxygen from the air for its charge, so the device can be smaller and more lightweight. A handful of labs are working on the technology, but scientists think that without a breakthrough they could be a decade away from commercialization.
UTILITY STORAGE
Everybody's rooting for wind and solar power. How could you not? But wind and solar are use-it-or-lose-it resources. To make any kind of difference, they need better storage. Scientists are attacking the problem from a host of angles—all of which are still problematic. One, for instance, uses power produced when the wind is blowing to compress air in underground chambers; the air is fed into gas-fired turbines to make them run more efficiently. One of the obstacles: finding big, usable, underground caverns. Similarly, giant batteries can absorb wind energy for later use, but some existing technologies are expensive, and others aren't very efficient. While researchers are looking at new materials to improve performance, giant technical leaps aren't likely.
American Electric Power images
Lithium-ion technology may hold the greatest promise for grid storage, where it doesn't have as many limitations as for autos. As performance improves and prices come down, utilities could distribute small, powerful lithium-ion batteries around the edge of the grid, closer to customers. There, they could store excess power from renewables and help smooth small fluctuations in power, making the grid more efficient and reducing the need for backup fossil-fuel plants. And utilities can piggy-back on research efforts for vehicle batteries.
CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE
Keeping coal as an abundant source of power means slashing the amount of carbon dioxide it produces. That could mean new, more efficient power plants. But trapping CO2 from existing plants—about two billion tons a year—would be the real game-changer.
Techniques for modest-scale CO2 capture exist, but applying them to big power plants would reduce the plants' output by a third and double the cost of producing power. So scientists are looking into experimental technologies that could cut emissions by 90% while limiting cost increases.
Image from Vattenfall, a Swedish company.
Nearly all are in the early stages, and it's too early to tell which method will win out. One promising technique burns coal and purified oxygen in the form of a metal oxide, rather than air; this produces an easier-to-capture concentrated stream of CO2 with little loss of plant efficiency. The technology has been demonstrated in small-scale pilots, and will be tried in a one-megawatt test plant next year. But it might not be ready for commercial use until 2020.
NEXT-GENERATION BIOFUELS
One way to wean ourselves from oil is to come up with renewable sources of transportation fuel. That means a new generation of biofuels made from nonfood crops.
Researchers are devising ways to turn lumber and crop wastes, garbage and inedible perennials like switchgrass into competitively priced fuels. But the most promising next-generation biofuel comes from algae.
Algae grow fast, consume carbon dioxide and can generate more than 5,000 gallons a year per acre of biofuel, compared with 350 gallons a year for corn-based ethanol. Algae-based fuel can be added directly into existing refining and distribution systems; in theory, the U.S. could produce enough of it to meet all of the nation's transportation needs.
But it's early. Dozens of companies have begun pilot projects and small-scale production. But producing algae biofuels in quantity means finding reliable sources of inexpensive nutrients and water, managing pathogens that could reduce yield, and developing and cultivating the most productive algae strains.
It's a tall order: Over the next few decades, the world will need to wean itself from dependence on fossil fuels and drastically reduce greenhouse gases. Current technology will take us only so far; major breakthroughs are required.
Even WSJ admits the reduction of greenhouse gases will need to be drastically reduced.
SPACE-BASED SOLAR POWER
For more than three decades, visionaries have imagined tapping solar power where the sun always shines—in space. If we could place giant solar panels in orbit around the Earth, and beam even a fraction of the available energy back to Earth, they could deliver nonstop electricity to any place on the planet.Found graphic in website of National Space Society. This next one is from New Scientist, the source for the WSJ article.
The technology may sound like science fiction, but it's simple: Solar panels in orbit about 22,000 miles up beam energy in the form of microwaves to earth, where it's turned into electricity and plugged into the grid. (The low-powered beams are considered safe.) A ground receiving station a mile in diameter could deliver about 1,000 megawatts—enough to power on average about 1,000 U.S. homes.
The cost of sending solar collectors into space is the biggest obstacle, so it's necessary to design a system lightweight enough to require only a few launches. A handful of countries and companies aim to deliver space-based power as early as a decade from now.
ADVANCED CAR BATTERIES
Electrifying vehicles could slash petroleum use and help clean the air (if electric power shifts to low-carbon fuels like wind or nuclear). But it's going to take better batteries.
Lithium-ion batteries, common in laptops, are favored for next-generation plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. They're more powerful than other auto batteries, but they're expensive and still don't go far on a charge; the Chevy Volt, a plug-in hybrid coming next year, can run about 40 miles on batteries alone. Ideally, electric cars will get closer to 400 miles on a charge. While improvements are possible, lithium-ion's potential is limited.
One alternative, lithium-air, promises 10 times the performance of lithium-ion batteries and could deliver about the same amount of energy, pound for pound, as gasoline. A lithium-air battery pulls oxygen from the air for its charge, so the device can be smaller and more lightweight. A handful of labs are working on the technology, but scientists think that without a breakthrough they could be a decade away from commercialization.
UTILITY STORAGE
Everybody's rooting for wind and solar power. How could you not? But wind and solar are use-it-or-lose-it resources. To make any kind of difference, they need better storage. Scientists are attacking the problem from a host of angles—all of which are still problematic. One, for instance, uses power produced when the wind is blowing to compress air in underground chambers; the air is fed into gas-fired turbines to make them run more efficiently. One of the obstacles: finding big, usable, underground caverns. Similarly, giant batteries can absorb wind energy for later use, but some existing technologies are expensive, and others aren't very efficient. While researchers are looking at new materials to improve performance, giant technical leaps aren't likely.
American Electric Power imagesLithium-ion technology may hold the greatest promise for grid storage, where it doesn't have as many limitations as for autos. As performance improves and prices come down, utilities could distribute small, powerful lithium-ion batteries around the edge of the grid, closer to customers. There, they could store excess power from renewables and help smooth small fluctuations in power, making the grid more efficient and reducing the need for backup fossil-fuel plants. And utilities can piggy-back on research efforts for vehicle batteries.
CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE
Keeping coal as an abundant source of power means slashing the amount of carbon dioxide it produces. That could mean new, more efficient power plants. But trapping CO2 from existing plants—about two billion tons a year—would be the real game-changer.
Techniques for modest-scale CO2 capture exist, but applying them to big power plants would reduce the plants' output by a third and double the cost of producing power. So scientists are looking into experimental technologies that could cut emissions by 90% while limiting cost increases.
Image from Vattenfall, a Swedish company.Nearly all are in the early stages, and it's too early to tell which method will win out. One promising technique burns coal and purified oxygen in the form of a metal oxide, rather than air; this produces an easier-to-capture concentrated stream of CO2 with little loss of plant efficiency. The technology has been demonstrated in small-scale pilots, and will be tried in a one-megawatt test plant next year. But it might not be ready for commercial use until 2020.
NEXT-GENERATION BIOFUELS
One way to wean ourselves from oil is to come up with renewable sources of transportation fuel. That means a new generation of biofuels made from nonfood crops.
Researchers are devising ways to turn lumber and crop wastes, garbage and inedible perennials like switchgrass into competitively priced fuels. But the most promising next-generation biofuel comes from algae.
Algae grow fast, consume carbon dioxide and can generate more than 5,000 gallons a year per acre of biofuel, compared with 350 gallons a year for corn-based ethanol. Algae-based fuel can be added directly into existing refining and distribution systems; in theory, the U.S. could produce enough of it to meet all of the nation's transportation needs.But it's early. Dozens of companies have begun pilot projects and small-scale production. But producing algae biofuels in quantity means finding reliable sources of inexpensive nutrients and water, managing pathogens that could reduce yield, and developing and cultivating the most productive algae strains.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
America’s Next Chapter
Former Senator Hart wrote a thought-provoking op-ed piece for the NY Times yesterday (Wednesday 26 June). The first thing that occurs to me is not "if only he'd kept his pecker in his pants" but "why did he dare the media to catch him?"
How badly is Hart's name damaged? This badly: in the Senate.gov website I entered "Gary Hart" in the search box, and the number 2 hit was this item:
Gary Hart's Townhouse
517 6th Street, SE, Washington, DC During his presidential campaign, Gary Hart, a Democrat U.S. Senator from Colorado, challenged reporters to find evidence of rumored philandering. The Miami Herald took up the challenge and staked out Hart's Capitol Hill townhouse. When Donna Rice arrived one night and didn't leave until the next morning, the newspaper ran the story. Hart claimed that reporters didn't watch both entrances to the home and could not have seen when Rice entered and left the building. But his presidential campaign was permanently damaged and he ultimately withdrew from the race.
The item is in the Scandalous Sites section of Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho (hey, the rhymes: Crapo Idaho. Some name, huh? He must've gotten a lot of flak in school).
Anyways, Gary Hart served in the Senate from 1975 to 1986. His biography includes that he graduated Bethany (Okla.) Navarene College 1958, Yale Divinity School 1961, Yale University Law School 1964, and earned a Ph.D. at Oxford University in 2001. So he went back to get his Ph.D. long after lkeaving the Senate. An accomplished man, intelligent, flawed.
In his essay he writes of the cycles evident in American history, as Schlesinger and Emerson and Henry Adams wrote.
What matters more than the length of the cycles is that these swings, between what Schlesinger called periods of reform and periods of consolidation, clearly occur. If we somewhat arbitrarily fix the age of Franklin D. Roosevelt as 1932 to 1968 and the era of Ronald Reagan as 1968 to 2008, a new cycle of American political history — a cycle of reform — is due.
Interesting to see FDR's age extended all the way to 1968, nearly a quarter century after he died. And to see Reagan's age begin a dozen years before he became president. Yet I can see what he means.
He postulates that Republicans, the religious right on social issues, the radical tax cutters or “supply-siders” on economic issues, and the neoconservatives on foreign policy have produced only superficial religiosity, a failed war and record deficits, and that traditional conservatives, who are dedicated to resistance to government intrusion into private lives, fiscal discipline and caution on military interventions, have yet to re-emerge, and may not.
He sees the internecine warfare of the GOP lasting as much as a decade. Fine by me.
Democrats, meanwhile, have yet to produce a coherent ideological framework to replace the New Deal, despite an eight-year experiment in “triangulation” and an undefined “centrism.” Once elected, Barack Obama would have a rare opportunity to define a new Democratic Party. He could preside over the beginning of a new political cycle that, if relevant to the times, would dominate American politics for three or four decades to come.
No Clinton fan, clearly.
Noting the power of “custom and fear,” and “of orthodoxy and of complacency,” Schlesinger believed that “the subversion of old ideas by the changing environment” would give a new leader the best chance to create a new cycle of reform and innovation.
Subvert the prevailing orthodoxy by changing conditions in order to institute change.
Senator Obama’s attempt to introduce the next American cycle should include, at minimum, three elements. National security requires a new, expanded, post-cold-war definition. America must transition from a consumer economy to a producing one. And the moral obligations of our stewardship of the planet must become paramount.
Very sensible to redefine the national strategy. But the US to become a production economy? Producer of what? The US has old plants, a post-industrial, service-based economy, high wages (relative to other nations), a focus on quarterly and annual results, no national vision or plan; how can it become a producer?
The next cycle of American history is as yet unframed, awaiting a national leader who can define a new role for government at home and a new role for America in the world of the 21st century.
Before it is too late, if it already isn't: the US is sinking, China, Brazil, India and Russia are rising, and we're arguing about prayer in school, guns, and abortion.
How badly is Hart's name damaged? This badly: in the Senate.gov website I entered "Gary Hart" in the search box, and the number 2 hit was this item:
Gary Hart's Townhouse
517 6th Street, SE, Washington, DC During his presidential campaign, Gary Hart, a Democrat U.S. Senator from Colorado, challenged reporters to find evidence of rumored philandering. The Miami Herald took up the challenge and staked out Hart's Capitol Hill townhouse. When Donna Rice arrived one night and didn't leave until the next morning, the newspaper ran the story. Hart claimed that reporters didn't watch both entrances to the home and could not have seen when Rice entered and left the building. But his presidential campaign was permanently damaged and he ultimately withdrew from the race.
The item is in the Scandalous Sites section of Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho (hey, the rhymes: Crapo Idaho. Some name, huh? He must've gotten a lot of flak in school).
Anyways, Gary Hart served in the Senate from 1975 to 1986. His biography includes that he graduated Bethany (Okla.) Navarene College 1958, Yale Divinity School 1961, Yale University Law School 1964, and earned a Ph.D. at Oxford University in 2001. So he went back to get his Ph.D. long after lkeaving the Senate. An accomplished man, intelligent, flawed.
In his essay he writes of the cycles evident in American history, as Schlesinger and Emerson and Henry Adams wrote.
What matters more than the length of the cycles is that these swings, between what Schlesinger called periods of reform and periods of consolidation, clearly occur. If we somewhat arbitrarily fix the age of Franklin D. Roosevelt as 1932 to 1968 and the era of Ronald Reagan as 1968 to 2008, a new cycle of American political history — a cycle of reform — is due.
Interesting to see FDR's age extended all the way to 1968, nearly a quarter century after he died. And to see Reagan's age begin a dozen years before he became president. Yet I can see what he means.
He postulates that Republicans, the religious right on social issues, the radical tax cutters or “supply-siders” on economic issues, and the neoconservatives on foreign policy have produced only superficial religiosity, a failed war and record deficits, and that traditional conservatives, who are dedicated to resistance to government intrusion into private lives, fiscal discipline and caution on military interventions, have yet to re-emerge, and may not.
He sees the internecine warfare of the GOP lasting as much as a decade. Fine by me.
Democrats, meanwhile, have yet to produce a coherent ideological framework to replace the New Deal, despite an eight-year experiment in “triangulation” and an undefined “centrism.” Once elected, Barack Obama would have a rare opportunity to define a new Democratic Party. He could preside over the beginning of a new political cycle that, if relevant to the times, would dominate American politics for three or four decades to come.
No Clinton fan, clearly.
Noting the power of “custom and fear,” and “of orthodoxy and of complacency,” Schlesinger believed that “the subversion of old ideas by the changing environment” would give a new leader the best chance to create a new cycle of reform and innovation.
Subvert the prevailing orthodoxy by changing conditions in order to institute change.
Senator Obama’s attempt to introduce the next American cycle should include, at minimum, three elements. National security requires a new, expanded, post-cold-war definition. America must transition from a consumer economy to a producing one. And the moral obligations of our stewardship of the planet must become paramount.
Very sensible to redefine the national strategy. But the US to become a production economy? Producer of what? The US has old plants, a post-industrial, service-based economy, high wages (relative to other nations), a focus on quarterly and annual results, no national vision or plan; how can it become a producer?
The next cycle of American history is as yet unframed, awaiting a national leader who can define a new role for government at home and a new role for America in the world of the 21st century.
Before it is too late, if it already isn't: the US is sinking, China, Brazil, India and Russia are rising, and we're arguing about prayer in school, guns, and abortion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)