Pandora FM radio

applications, internet, mobile View Comments
Feb 182012

Feed Pandora a few of your favorite artists or songs and Pandora creates a custom music station for you, delivered over the Internet.  Listen via web browser, Android, iPhone, etc.   Rate songs a thumbs up or thumbs down as Pandora plays them to curate your personal radio station on the fly and improve/customize your mix accordingly.   One critical component of Pandora’s success is their ability to deliver completely individualized radio stations (playlists) to us over the Internet, but would Pandora FM broadcast radio stations also make sense?

Pandora FM: why? Listener perspective:

  • Am not in front of PC or tablet and need to use my mobile phone for purposes that conflict with Pandora
  • Mobile low on battery
  • Prefer the Pandora FM mix than the local FM stations (and can’t listen to my personal Pandora station due to reasons like the ones listed above)
  • Prefer wider variety mix at times (compared to my personal Pandora stream)
  • Want to hear what local people are listening to
  • Better quality sound than listening on my mobile or computer
  • Better experience listening with a group of people to an FM station
  • Want to hear local traffic, weather or news (assumes Pandora FM adds that content)

Local Pandora FM radio stations: what to play?
Each local Pandora FM radio station would play what its broadcast area listeners want to hear:

  • Could be an aggregation of all the local Pandora listener playlists
  • Algorithms could weight towards artists and songs that show up the most frequently, receive the most thumbs up and/or are trending up at the highest rates
  • Pandora could enable us to request certain songs or artists for local FM broadcast via Pandora or other apps (Twitter, Foursquare, etc.)
  • Algorithms could incorporate data passively mined from other sources as well, e.g. bands and songs trending on Facebook, Twitter, etc., especially if the data includes location information.
  • Different hours of the day could focus on different genres of music

Pandora FM: what is local to each Pandora station?
If Pandora FM 100.7 broadcasts in the Nashville, TN area, then local for 100.7 might be defined as a mix of:

  • Playlists from Pandora users that live in Nashville
  • Pandora users that are currently in Nashville (determined using location data automatically gathered from Pandora’s mobile app, or from listeners choosing to check in to Pandora, or checking in to apps such as Foursquare and Facebook).
  • Listeners that tell Pandora that they are currently in Nashville and listening to Nashville’s 100.7 (tell Pandora via Pandora, Facebook, Foursquare, Twitter, web, text, email, etc.).

This would likely result in different, customized mixes in different hours, e.g. if Nashville has a heavy commuter population, then 100.7 might have a very different music mix during the day than at night.

Pandora FM: why? Pandora perspective:

  • Improve Pandora product
  • Reach more people
  • Sell more ads, including local advertising
  • Build better data on user base
  • Set the stage for getting into local events, potentially very lucrative for Pandora
  • May be able to offer more customized mix in future with technology and regulatory changes in digital radio, software defined radio, spectrum distribution, etc.

Pandora FM: concerns, unknowns?

  • Competencies associated with running an FM station and potentially a local ad sales force may be too much of a distraction or too far from Pandora’s core to invest in (though Pandora likely run these differently than today’s FM station).  Of course doesn’t need to be a complete Pandora buy or take-over, Pandora could partner with current FM stations in full or partially, e.g. Pandora-powered blocks of time throughout the day, and could do similar for local ad sales in terms of partnering w/ others, offering their own self-serve ad buying/placement capabilities, etc.
  • Hard to get the mix right – skews too much towards “hits” when using aggregated data and listeners prefer stations that focus solely on certain music genre
  • Overall business model – don’t know how Pandora pays royalties or licensing rights today – would that change for broadcast radio?
  • State of current market on buying frequency or existing stations?   Assume available at a decent discount but that’s just a guess, perhaps it is seller’s market right now.

What do you think?  Would you listen to a Pandora FM station in your area?  Does it make sense for Pandora?  Will we ever listen to Pandora local FM radio stations?

Note: just using Pandora as an example, as they seem well positioned in this area, but of course any company could try similar.  Similarly, focused on FM radio, but other options such as satellite radio may be viable.

    Tagged with: ,

    smartphones should save dumb drivers

    applications, mobile View Comments
    Feb 112012

    How much do you increase your risk of causing an accident if you close your eyes for a second or two every now and then while you are driving? At 40 MPH your car will move almost 60 feet for every second your eyes are closed. Other cars will too. And they’ll turn, stop, bob and weave. Yet we all take this risk if we use our phones while driving. When was the last time you looked at your iPhone at 40 MPH?

    Tests such as this one by Car and Driver Magazine show that texting and driving can be more dangerous than drinking and driving, for example texting while driving causing more than 10x slower reaction time to events than being drunk. Their methodology isn’t perfect but we all know that driving while not looking is risky business.

    SaveLives app
    When engaged, the SaveLives app blocks your phone’s inputs and blacks out the screen, preventing you from playing Russian roulette while driving, aka driving blind while peeking at your Droid to read one more tweet. The SaveLives app is automatically started when you are driving a car. When we are driving, SaveLives effectively shuts down our texting, emails, Facebook…any app that depends on us looking at our screen…until we stop our cars. The SaveLives app enables our smartphones to save us from ourselves, and from each other. It prevents us from acting on the belief that we can safely send that quick text – and perhaps 99% of the time being correct – but with potentially fatal consequences for the 1% of the time in which we are wrong.

    Engaging the SaveLives app
    It would be easy for the app to engage when your phone’s accelerometer detects your phone is in motion above a certain speed threshold. But what if you are not the driver and therefore want or even need full use of your smartphone? This part is trickier – leave suggestions in the comments – one possibility:

    In the future, cars will integrate a few Bluetooth or NFC devices into different areas of the car. SaveLives enages when your smartphone accelerometer detects motion above a minimum threshold, unless NFC (“swipe” NFC targets positioned close to seats other than the driver’s seat) and/or Bluetooth (triangulation between the distributed Bluetooth devices) determines that you are not the driver. The Bluetooth/NFC interface specs should be be open and published so other apps can leverage the same infrastructure. NFC or Bluetooth checks are required periodically in case the phone moves around your car during the trip. Of course all of the above only works with smartphones, so doesn’t for example prevent text messaging on older “feature phones”, but we won’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    Incentives?
    Need some financial incentive? Insurance companies will give you better rates if you have the Bluetooth/NFC chips installed in your car and reports published by your SaveLives app prove it is being used. Much better rates. Perhaps the setup will even be mandated, or at least required for drivers that have “earned” it (accident history, high risk category, etc.). Even outside of any external incentives, would you mandate it for your family members? Would you prefer to buy a smart car that had the Bluetooth/NFC infrastructure already installed to a car that didn’t (meaning automakers should benefit financially as well).

    SaveLives won’t block our navigation apps
    Not blocking apps that can work passively after they are launched is why SaveLives blocks screen inputs and blacks out your screen, rather than completely locking your phone. As long as you engage your passive app prior to motion, and your app doesn’t require you to look at your screen or give inputs other than voice once the app is launched, your app will run just fine. Voice commands are not blocked and neither is communication with any devices or peripherals that your phone is controlling, e.g. when your phone is controlling apps inside your connected car like the stereo or rear DVD player. Answering inbound phone calls? Sure, as long as you do it with a voice command.

    Skiing with our iPhones
    You are skiing, biking, or even running very fast. You pass the speed threshold to engage the SaveLives app, but you aren’t in a car so can’t prove that you are not driving it. Pairing the accelerometer with GPS will address some of these cases, but not all. This is another reason why SaveLives blocks screen inputs and blacks out the screen, but doesn’t block mobile apps that can run passively once they are launched. Start your fitness app, music, ski cam, etc. before you accelerate. It will run fine. Need to interact with the app before you come to a stop? Only if that interaction is enabled by methods other than taps on the screen, e.g. the ski cam stopping to record once your motion stops, or a running app sending you audio alerts based on your pace or distance.

    What do we do now?
    What methods do we use to engage/disengage SaveLives before the Bluetooth or NFC setup is available in the smart cars or connected cars of the future? Add your ideas in the comments. We’d probably need multiple methods, which in total or in combination might address the majority of use cases. For example combining these two methods isn’t foolproof but would address some of the problems:

    1. SaveLives could make us prove that we aren’t driving the car – engage when the accelerometer detects speed above threshold – only disengage if we can beat a game or solve a puzzle that requires a couple of minutes of constant attention. Concerns with this method are people trying to beat the game while driving, even if it is near impossible, or asking others in the car to beat the game and then pass them the smartphone (periodically requesting the puzzle to be solved by non-drivers would be a pain point that many people would object to, unlike the Bluetooth or NFC checks which can be done behind the scenes or with minimal impact). However, some impediment is better than no impediment, as long as the try-to-beat-the-game-while-driving population is smaller than the current population of drivers that cause accidents while distracted by smartphone use.
    2. If there is more than one smartphone in the car, peer-to-peer communication between SaveLives mobile apps could enforce a policy by which at least one of the total number of phones in the car needs to have SaveLives engaged if the car is in motion.

    Of course the second method only works when there are multiple people in the car with smartphones with Savelives. However, the two methods could be combined with the first method to prevent the driver from passing his phone to others to beat the game, and then taking it back while driving.

    The connected car or smart car of the future will certainly be loaded with bells and whistles that we’ll love. I think the smartphone itself will play a critical role in controlling and enabling many aspects of that connected car experience. I hope that the smart car of the future will also be safer for it – whether via SaveLives, a similar app, or an entirely different set of methods.

      Tagged with: , , , , , ,

      verizon wireless announces API for turbo bandwidth

      applications, internet, mobile View Comments
      Nov 052011

      Let’s hope no mobile app developers actually implement the Verizon API for turbo bandwidth. There are a thousand reasons why this is a flawed idea, even without getting into core net neutrality issues. Below are three macro-level issues and one counter-offer to Verizon.

      1. Verizon Wireless is basically a monopoly
      If it was a truly competitive market, then Verizon can offer turbo, nitro and nuclear and I’d have no issue with it. I’d just go elsewhere. Unfortunately this is a monopoly/duopoly situation in most of the US.

      2. Hitting turbo could be taking Pepto-Bismol for a headache
      Consumers don’t know why their app is “slow”. Maybe it is last mile bandwidth. Maybe not. There are many causes for “slow” apps. You ready to hit “turbo”, pay Verizon and then not get the desired result because of a client issue on your mobile phone or iPad, a third party ISP’s congested Cisco router queuing packets on the route between your app provider and Verizon, or some database issues that your app provider is dealing with? The articles suggest the user will hit the turbo button but it is problematic even if it the app requesting more bandwidth on behalf of the user.

      3. Verizon may be the source of the problem
      Last mile bandwidth issues are not always caused by too much demand. What if Verizon Wireless has a problem causing the available local bandwidth supply to be cut in half? Should you pay for that by hitting the turbo button and (maybe) getting enough priority to get more packets through? What if Verizon does some poor design or engineering – should you pay for that? By the way, this type of data prioritization implementation isn’t easy – it may not work well even if everything else is in line – MPLS schemes, designed for similar purposes, often fail.

      Counter-proposal: we get what we pay for…both ways
      Verizon Wireless can add the turbo feature…if Verizon credits its customers each time one of our apps is slow due to the bandwidth being less than we are paying for and there is proper visibility for credibility. If I want priority, I’ll hit the turbo button. If I actually get the improved performance, improved to a transfer rate higher than I am paying for, then I will gladly pay for it using the credits I built up during all the times Verizon was giving me less bandwidth than I was paying for. And I’ll happily collect money from VZW each month when the balance is in my favor.

      A variant of this counter-proposal to consider could be a two-way API between Verizon and the app providers – they maintain this bandwidth SLA of sorts and true up each month. I’ve heard folks like Aswath suggest similar (I believe) though I haven’t thought through it enough. They can explain it in more detail and have thought through the positives and negatives.

      The best “solution” would really be no solution. Instead of investing in bandwidth prioritization technology, instrumentation, reporting, regulation, DPI, metering, billing, governance, etc…invest all that time and capital in minimizing the amount of time that bandwidth is an issue to begin with. Bandwidth really shouldn’t be the limiting factor – there is more value for everyone and more revenue in the ecosystem for all the players if assumed bandwidth constraints aren’t somewhat artificially throttling demand.

        Tagged with: , ,

        replace your kitchen cordless phone with a home Android?

        applications, internet, mobile View Comments
        Aug 172011

        Google could leverage their new Motorola Mobility assets to get to their goal of mobile carrier independent Androids via the back door that will soon be left open by our landline PSTN carriers. We know the PSTN is facing extinction; Google could be a part of the replacement.

        Motorola set top boxes as base stations
        Google would use enhanced versions of the Motorola Mobility set top boxes, about 50% of the set top boxes in the US, to provide you with home phone service. You’d get a home Android phone that would replace your current home phone, your Motorola Mobility set top box would essentially serve as its base station, and your home calls would be VoIP, using the cable ISP pipe on the other side of that set top box. Maybe more importantly for Google, it could put you on a path towards carrier independence, even for your mobile phones.

        Home phone service with limited roaming
        Your home phone service would, at minimum, and minimum might be desirable in many cases, be what it is today. While not being mobile on day one, your home Android could do some limited roaming. Limited is not the issue it would be if it was competing against fully mobile phones; it is a feature compared to the zero roaming on your current home phone. How would this work?

        Home Android roaming
        Your phone could authenticate with any Motorola set top box and also hop on WiFi and similar networks. Some security measures would need to be taken for these roaming type options, both to protect you from compromising a home Android that may be your only connection at home, and to protect folks from external threats if they enable their set top boxes to function as public (with restrictions) access points.

        Roaming to independence
        Over time, the roaming coverage will increase and in aggregate represent a lot of traffic. Enough to “peer” in some way with other providers of network, e.g. mobile carriers. Google could then open those options up to other Android handsets – not just home Androids – for example taking a lot of load off of Sprint’s network and giving Sprint users better signal in buildings. Sprint might then in return provide roaming radio access to the home Androids. The lines between your home Android and your Sprint Android have changed and both Androids become much more carrier independent.

        VoIP for dummies
        Home phone service is one area where tight integration between phone and service does make sense. Much of the home phone market is quite simply used to it, and any change is perceived as involving work and risk. For example, much of the above could be done with various VoIP options, but it isn’t as easy as PSTN/POTS. Google would be positioned to make this plug-and-play. Take your home Android phone out of your box and use it. Very possible if Google controls the set top box and the phone – would need some cooperation from the cable providers and Google could make it worth it for them.

        Food for future thought
        There are also interesting peer-to-peer and content delivery optimization possibilities between the set top boxes and Androids, especially if enhanced set top boxes have enough wireless range to reach each other directly, but even if they go to the same router at the edge of your neighborhood. One of my favorites – always-on voice and video – is one area. Entertainment is another. If you just pulled down a movie, or are streaming it, my set top box might grab it from your set top box, instead of going out to a CDN server a few router hops away. Also scenarios in which your Android is the remote for all your content in the cloud, using whatever video and audio outputs become more viable. I’m at your house and my Android triggers your set top box to pull up a movie that I have rented/purchased and display it on your big screen at a near zero incremental cost to Netflix as your set top box streams parts of it peer to peer from a couple of other set top boxes in the neighborhood. On the (near-zero?) chance that Google takes the Motorola hardware stack and successfully completely open sources it, many more interesting doors could be opened. Food for further thought.

        Back to home phones
        Will Google be your new home phone carrier? I have no idea, but it is a fun to think about because it is viable, and it might be worth the investment (in addition to the technology investment, they would likely need to become an FCC licensed carrier, which is not trivial) if Google can use it as part of a strategy towards complete carrier independence for Androids.

          Tagged with: , , ,

          Android isn't free but that doesn't mean Google will sell iPhones

          mobile View Comments
          Aug 172011

          Fascinating to think about the motivations for an the implications of Google’s purchase of Motorola Mobility. Read the experts in the Techmeme memes from day one and day two for excellent analysis, opinions and predictions around Google’s purchase of Motorola Mobility.

          Two quick thoughts from the sidelines to add to the more expert analysis:

          Google isn’t Apple and doesn’t want to be
          Farhad Manjoo writes a nice article for Slate that theorizes on Google’s motivations for the purchase, describes how Google couldn’t continue to license Android for free, and concludes that Google will now move to an Apple iPhone like model for Android based phones. I like the analysis but disagree with that set of conclusions.

          • Android is a means to an end for Google whereas iPhones are part of the end game for Apple. Two very different business strategies and the resultant products need to be considered in that context.
          • Google cares about dominating search and organizing the world’s information. The way to accomplish those goals is maximum Android distribution on mobile computers and tablets – the most important source and destination of tomorrow’s information.

          The goal is maximum Android distribution
          So, if we agree Google’s end game is maximum Android distribution, then why the purchase of Motorola Mobility? A pet peeve I have in the engineering world of debugging, analysis and troubleshooting is the temptation to jump on the single cause. Rarely the case in complex troubleshooting, and I’d guess even less rarely for $12B purchases.  Some possibilities do stand out, especially if we narrow our focus to variable that most help Google achieve their ultimate goal of maximum Android distribution:

          • Ensure intellectual property doesn’t become an Android roadblock. We know from the Nortel patent bidding that those patents themselves are very valuable and deemed necessary by the big players. Perhaps Google has always known this and is why they licensed Android for free, as opposed to charging a small nominal amount?  This is an obvious motivation and probably the driving one, but can’t be the only motivation.
          • Make Android independent of carriers. I also believe Google still wants Android to be carrier independent. See Tom Evslin’s excellent summary here for more on that front. I’d add to that possibly using all those Motorola set top boxes as routers of a sort. Maybe enable them to provide enhanced WiFi (or similar) and do some peer-to-peer networking with other “set top boxes” and Android powered devices to form more non-carrier dependent wireless network access.
          • Make Android better. I don’t think we should underrate Motorola people and expertise; some of the best in the world for mobility. Those folks and expertise can help make Android a better platform, especially when you (virtually) put the hardware, firmware, OS and application experts in the same room.
          • What’s missing? Motorola Droid handsets taking on iPhones. I think in enough time Motorola branded handsets are history. Google’s goal is maximum distribution. Even if you can argue that a tight integration between Motorola and Android would enable Google to compete better at the top of the market, you could also argue that the ramifications on Google’s Android partner ecosystem would net overall less Android distribution.  What will Google do with the handsets? Open source the whole stack and pivot Motorola Mobility into the Red Hat of mobile hardware (not that this would be the same as open source OS or software)? In other words, it is anybody’s guess, but I just don’t think Google wants much to do with the hardware business itself, at least not directly.

          So my net feel is Google was probably pushed to act by the IP issues but they would have acted differently if that was the only driver. We don’t know how Google will now act to use Motorola Mobility to meet their goals, but ironically I don’t think the handsets themselves will directly be a big part of the picture, at least not long-term.

            Tagged with: , , ,

            Bezos enabled EFOs in P-Games

            applications, mobile View Comments
            Aug 122011

            GeekWire has post about Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Greg Hart submitting a patent for “a system and method for protecting devices from impact damage.” The disclosure includes listing protection via parachutes, springs, airbags, and gas expulsion.
            phone parachute
            So moving a bit outside of the serious box on a Friday, could this help start P-Games (phone games)? Like ESPN did with the X-Games, but phone powered.

            Take any object you could throw, kick or launch in a competition (e.g. javelin, shot put, softball, frisbee, rocket, hacky sack), replace it with your phone, tablet or Kindle of choice, and adapt the game to fit your electronic flying object (EFO).

            Your phone, now an EFO with landing gear, will record its own flight path, distance, velocity etc. and post it online to track P-game activity, history, wins, records, etc. You can bet Samsung and HTC will be warring over more aerodynamic phones in no time. I’m also sure there will be integration to auto-update – in mid-flight – Twitter, Facebook and Google+.  Not to mention re-definition of phone crashes.

            Boom, P-Games, unintended but fun consequence of the Jeff Bezos and Greg Hart patent on protecting mobiles and tablets.

              skype 2.1 for android *supports* video calling

              applications, mobile, video calling View Comments
              Aug 042011

              Good news: Skype 2.1 for Android now *supports* two-way video on about 20 Android devices. Details here on Techmeme.

              Bad news: I tried it on my Charge and found out “support” is being very loosely defined, and likely not in a way you’ll be happy with, unless your Droid has at least an Android 2.3.x Gingerbread release (only about 20% of people).

              Skype 2.2 video experience on Android Froyo releases:
              Most of us are still limited to an Android 2.2.x release (Froyo). For me, that severely limited my Skype Android video experience on my Samsung Droid Charge, and it seems like the rear-facing camera issue hits everyone not on Gingerbread. Not sure yet if the other issue is specific to my Charge or the video session I did.

              • My beautiful, crisp, colorful ~400,000 pixel display was limited to a few pixels in terms of seeing the person I was video calling with. If I video call you, I will only see you, or whatever is in front of your camera, in a tiny picture-in-picture type square in the corner of my screen. Possibly a bug? Other party was on an iPad though I’ll assume for now the send side didn’t have anything to do with it. Will need to look into further. What takes up the rest of my great display? Whatever my Charge’s rear facing camera is pointing at. Not much video *support* there, Google/Android/Samsung/Skype…
              • The video from my rear facing camera is what you’ll see if you video with me. It did show full screen on the other side. No front facing camera support on the Droid Charge until Gingerbread. This is a known limitation but it doesn’t make it any more palatable and IMO it is a severe stretch to say video chat is supported when the front facing camera is not.
              • On the positive side, video and audio quality were good, over both 3G and 4G, though I’ll need to get a few more pixels to really judge the video quality on the receive side.

              I have seen leaked Gingerbread updates “in the wild” but haven’t grabbed one to this point, and also haven’t seen an official release date from Google, Samsung or Verizon. The GB update is also supposed to include support for Google Video on most Droids, presumably including my Charge (Google Talk video chat).

                Tagged with: , , , ,

                skype needs to swallow microsoft

                mobile, telepresence, video calling, video conferencing View Comments
                May 092011

                Microsoft was dead without mobile, barely at the table. Skype means Microsoft is now all in. Can they take the table? Only if Skype swallows Microsoft.

                According to the WSJ, MSFT will buy Skype for over $7 billion. I’ve blogged before about Skype preparing to lead the disruption of enterprise communications and video. Well, consider it disrupted. Of course, Skype will likely be done disrupting, but I suppose they did their job.

                I don’t this MSFT paid over $7B to play defense, cannibalize/extend Lync, gain residential voice, strengthen SMB or add to their unified communications story. No, I think this is about mobile, especially mobile video.

                MSFT is dead without mobile. So they bet large on Nokia and now double down to the tune of $7B+ with Skype, and they’ll likely bet more. Great moves? No, but the Microsoft hand is forced. Play big or go home. Now Skype needs to swallow MSFT.

                [updates with numbers] Why does Skype need to swallow MSFT? Skype has 170 million users, growing at a 40% rate. Skype has 80-100 million active users (my estimate). None of those users are anchored by a specific pipe provider or platform provider. This makes Skype the only widely deployed carrier independent, platform independent communications solution in the world. If Skype can maintain that, if Skype can swallow MSFT to the degree that they can continue to independently innovate and disrupt, then MSFT wins. Wins big.

                More likely we’ll get three mobile islands, especially for mobile video. Apple iOS/Facetime, Android/Google Video, Windows Phone/Skype. Big islands – mobile video, voice, IM, presence. Even if MSFT does that – turns the big two (Apple, Google) into the big two – then that’s worth the price as well.

                Unfortunately for Microsoft and Skype, they will have to execute flawlessly – almost unheard of for an acquisition of this magnitude from a company of MSFT’s size. Skype would have to swallow MSFT, in this specific space, rather than the usual Borg effect we see in M&A like this.

                  Tagged with: , , ,

                  Clickpitch: birth of real video games

                  applications, internet, mobile, sports, startups, telepresence, video calling View Comments
                  May 032011

                  The hitter’s knees buckle as he can only watch a filthy slider catch the inside corner for strike two. The pitcher considers his next pitch choice, from the other side of the world, enabled by Clickpitch.

                  Video game baseball with physical hitters and actual pitched balls
                  The hitter digs in for the next pitch in a batting cage type facility loaded with sensors, video cameras and software that virtually transform the cage into a full-size field. 60 feet, 6 inches from the hitter is a sophisticated pitching machine, or even a robot pitcher, but the brain of the pitcher can be anywhere – the machine is told what pitches to throw from anywhere on the web, as part of sophisticated video games and training programs.

                  In this case, a boy in Japan, via his Droid, is considering following up the slider with an inside, shoulder high, 86 MPH fastball, a couple inches off the inside corner, trying to get the hitter to chase for strike three, although his tweet stream and GroupMe group is urging him to go back to the nasty slider. The pitcher could just as easily be an actual MLB starting pitcher, playing on his iPad in the clubhouse on his day off, and for that matter the hitter could be an MLB hitter getting his practice in.

                  Pitching from Android, Wii, Xbox, iPad
                  The boy in Japan is not just any pitcher – he is a superstar – he leads both the Facebook and MLB.com virtual Cy Young award voting for Clickpitch enabled baseball video games. If he still leads at the MLB all-star break, he will pitch an inning to the National League All-Star team at Citi Field, using his Droid. He’s a catcher on his school team so knows a thing or two about pitch selection.

                  The robot pitchers can emulate all levels from a Little League pitcher to a MLB ace, including software to manage margin for error by level, e.g. if the bot is a Little League pitcher instructed to throw an outside corner fastball then he might hit the hitter, whereas the MLB ace robot pitcher is going to paint the black. Actual MLB pitchers, based on their actual pitch data, can be imitated such that a hitter can choose to face Roy Halladay in the first inning, Clayton Kershaw in the second and CC Sabathia in the next. Today’s advanced statistics, pitching charts and sabermetrics could make this very sophisticated.

                  Hitting against smart pitchers instead of dumb machines
                  The hitter is enjoying the best offseason hitting practice of his life, as he’s now facing pitchers that are trying to get him out, based on his strengths and weaknesses, and the pitchers’ characteristics. The session are not lost when the hitter leaves the virtual field – the hitter uses telepresence to work with his coach at anytime and video to keep all results. Right now, the coach, from his basement office, demonstrates over telepresence a swing change that he wants the hitter to try. Video is tagged such that the hitter and his coach review all clips of swings on 90 MPH fastballs on the inner half of the plate over the past two months, or any other set of swings they want to analyze. A former coach that is in the hitter’s GroupMe baseball group may contribute advice about a subtle change in stance that he’s noticed in the hitter over time.

                  The next generation of baseball video games and video game ecosystems
                  Clickpitch turned legacy baseball video games into typewriters – most people barely remember them. There are hundreds of different video games on various platforms that simultaneously utilize each at-bat between hitter, robot pitcher and pitcher controller, creating millions of parallel games for players to join at anytime. Some video games for example create entire games for their users, enabling broadcasting students to call each game, whereas others are geared purely towards training and practice.

                  Little League numbers have soared as well as America’s pastime has been reinvigorated by kids being introduced to baseball on their iPad apps, going to the hitting zones to compete against their friends and then finding their way to their local Little League programs.

                  Clickpitch is the software and algorithms platform, built in the new peer-produced, crowdsourced product development model. Many companies have leveraged Clickpitch data and APIs to add various sensors, telepresence solutions, video games, statistical packages, iPhone and iPad apps, browser-based games, robots, pitching machines, video footage review products, social net integrations, etc. Some college coaches run full live practices but with the pitcher replaced by the Clickpitch/bot/virtual pitcher combination. In this way, pitchers’ arms are saved from practice innings, while the hitters still face top quality pitching and all the statistics and video clips are archived away for follow-up.

                  Note: ClickPitch doesn’t exist. I offer the idea out to the interwebs in the event that someone wants to run with parts of the idea. Meanwhile that boy in Japan is anxiously waiting for the opportunity to pitch to David Wright at a future MLB All-Star game.

                    Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

                    phone app to detect cancer

                    applications, education, healthcare and medicine, internet, mobile, telepresence View Comments
                    Mar 112011

                    Scientists at the Massachusetts General Hospital have prototyped a smartphone integrated microNMR device that accurately detects cancer cells. The prototype enables a technician to extract a cell sample, immediately analyze it and have the digital results stored and ready to communicate.

                    This paragraph from David Hill at Singularity Hub summarizes this perfectly:

                    The next decade may very well go down as the decade of the smartphone, but it’s comforting to know that it may be due to more than just texting, gaming, and watching YouTube. With an increasing number of healthcare-related apps, smartphones have the potential to bridge the gap between doctors and patients through convenient and rapid access to medical data. We’ve already highlighted health-related apps that will measure blood-sugar levels and monitor vital signs, but some new apps are aimed at helping doctors by interfacing with medical devices where the smartphone becomes the tool for data handling, visualization, and communication. Devices like the microNMR, the digital stethoscope, and another app that changes a smartphone into a skin cancer screening tool promise to make smartphones revolutionary platforms that improve medicine for both clinicians and patients.

                    Games have dominated mobile apps so far, but I think the combination of mobile apps, ubiquitous mobile broadband Internet, telepresence quality video and today’s distributed and often cloud-based computing power and storage will enable the dev of life-changing apps in medical research and education to hit an inflection point in the near future.

                      Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,
                      Older Entries
                      © 2012 NextBlitz Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha