Koemei Is Out To Transc...

Lord knows there is a lot of online video out there these days, but only a tiny proportion of it has been transcribed (less than 1% according to some estimates). Searching the mountains of video generated by businesses, governments and educational institutions for the valuable information within is almost impossible because the words hidden in the audio are invisible to search. Waiting for it is not just the world, but the many people who can’t access that video because of their disabilities. Transcription unlocks the gold-dust buried in them there video hills. This would involve transcription on a vast scale, but this is exactly the problem Koemei aims to tackle. It’s a SAAS platform for speech recognition in video. Today at TechCrunch Disrupt it announced it has completed an integration with YouTube’s API in preparation for a potential launch. It also announced the successful completion of its first pilot with the University of Geneva and IMD Business School. Simple video lectures can be uploaded, translated, linked to and visible on other platforms like YouTube. Users get to see an interface where they can go through the lecture and check the transcription. Based out of Martigny, Switzerland and with offices in San Francisco, Koemei is a startup leveraging years of academic research. It was spun out of the Swiss Institute of Technology (Idiap institute), which worked with Sheffield University and Edinburgh University on a seven year EU-funded project (which has about $30 million spent on it already). Koemei acquired all the IP under a transfer agreement, has a patent pending and now plans to use its platform to transcribe video content on a super-scale. The problem they are out to solve is obvious. Manual transcription is expensive (as much as $5 per minute). They claim to reduce the cost down to $0.09 a minute. The startup estimates the market for video transcription is around $16 billion annually, given that there are around 120,000 people doing this work in the U.S. alone. It anticipates there will be a 21% year on year growth in the business. The market for corporate and educational video is clearly the most lucrative here. Koemei claims its automated transcription program works better than current systems from the likes of Nuance , because it not only transcribes the video’s soundtrack into words, but also produces an interface for humans to check the transcription. This can be open to the public or closed off for designated users. In other words, it ends up being like a crowdsourced effort to check an AI’s transcription, making it far more accurate than AI alone. An hour audio takes an hour to transcribe, claims the startup. The transcriptions can be pushed to YouTube, Vimeo etc and you get the first 10 hours of transcription free, just in case you need convincing that it works. Of course the technology needn’t just work for the likes of YouTube. There is also videoconferencing, telepresence, web collaboration, group meetings, classroom lectures, webcast; the list goes on. So far they’ve done a pilot rollout with some university partners which has brought in some revenues and proved the model. Next up will be more partners, plus an enterprise solution they want to offer to the likes of Vimeo, Brightcove, and Kaltura among others. On the horizon, their potential competition is Nuance, Google (Google Voice) and solutions like Amazon Mechanical Turk. This is not exactly a weak opposition, but they reckon they can beat all comers. They claim Nuance has issues with long conversations; Google Voice is low quality and closed for other platforms; and mechanical turk solutions involving people are pricey – and may even be customers for Koemei in the end. The startup predicts it could have $44.9 million in sales by 2014, with a potential exit to any number of players including, not unexpectedly, most of their opposition. Backed with Angel funding, they’re now raising a $1.5 million Series A round, following a commitment from a European early-stage VC. The team is led by Temitope Ola, formerly of Silicon Graphics, and comprises three others, most of whom worked on the platform during its academic development.

The Free Ride Is Over F...

Comcast’s plans to do away with its 250 GB data cap and charge users based upon usage marks the end of an era for cable TV providers, and for the online video industry. No longer will users be able to endlessly stream all the content their hearts desire. Not just that, but the fact that usage-based pricing is arriving at the same time that more, higher-quality content is appearing online could have a dampening effect on demand for services like Netflix or Hulu Plus. Comcast, of course, says that its new, usage-based pricing policy is pro-consumer, and to a certain extent it is. The average broadband subscriber — those who only use up about 8 GB or 10 GB of data a month — shouldn’t necessarily pay the same as those whose usage goes above 300 GB in the same period of time. But for those of us who are avid streaming video users, usage-based pricing models could change the overall value proposition of watching video on the Internet. Can streaming video be a TV replacement? I’m a subscriber to Netflix, Hulu Plus, and MLB.tv. I have a Roku box and an Apple TV, and I frequently purchase season passes to shows like Mad Men, Justified, and Sons of Anarchy. Even though I don’t pay for cable, I take advantage of access to TV Everywhere applications from the likes of Showtime and HBO, from my family’s Xfinity TV account, as well as test accounts that I occasionally get from some of the cable networks to check out their new services. In other words, I watch streaming video in the same way a lot of other people watch regular TV. But instead of recording shows and watching them from a DVR, I watch them on-demand online. I’m also a Comcast broadband subscriber, and I’m probably what the company would consider a heavy data user. While I’ve never bumped up against the 250GB cap, I’ve definitely started to come close over the last several months. In April I racked up 160 GB of data usage, and about halfway through May, I’ve already used 90 GB. That might be atypical for the average Comcast broadband subscriber, but I think that type of usage is becoming a lot more common, particularly for highly connected people like me. More importantly, the amount of data I’m using has rapidly increased over the last year or so. It wasn’t so long ago that I was typically using less than 100 GB a month. And I expect it to continue increasing, to the point where I wouldn’t be surprised if I hit and surpass Comcast’s new 300 GB data limit at some point over the next 12-18 months. Part of that is due to me just watching more stuff — I’ve been re-watching old episodes from The Wire, for instance, in addition to a regular slate of weekly shows. And with baseball season up and running, I’m streaming a lot more MLB.tv as well. But part of it is also due to more bandwidth being used by higher bit rate streams, as services like Netflix improve the video quality of their products. Putting things into perspective But what about data usage for everyone else? The average video on Netflix uses up about 1 GB of data per hour, but most of those streams aren’t in full HD. The highest quality setting for Netflix, which is what most viewers would like to stream to their TVs, uses more than twice as much data per hour. According to Nielsen, the average TV viewer consumes about five hours of video a day , or about 150 hours of video per month. For those keeping track at home, that means that you’d have to watch even more video online than your typical TV watcher if you ever plan to max out Comcast’s 300 GB allotment. Of course, that’s where things are now, but video quality continues to improve for all of these services, and that means higher bit rates and more data streamed per movie or TV show. What happens as these services improve, as more content and higher-quality content makes its way online? And what happens as more people tune into those services? Today, about 30 percent of users have streamed a video to their TVs, either because they own a so-called “smart TV” that came with access to streaming video services, or because they’ve connected a game console or streaming box (and in some cases a PC) to a dumb TV. What happens when that hits 50 percent? Or 75 percent? Hell, what happens when Apple’s mythical iTV gets released and users suddenly have access to a whole new set of streaming applications in 1080p? That will change the value proposition of online video dramatically. For me, between all the different subscription VOD services and the cost of 8-10 season passes that I buy every year, I’m probably already paying more for streaming services than I would pay for TV if I just purchased a basic cable package. But then, I wouldn’t have the convenience of on-demand access to most of the content that I want from a number of different services and devices. And I also wouldn’t have the pleasure of watching most of that content without ads. For now, it’s a trade-off I’m willing to make. But in the future, if I have to pay an additional $10 for every 50 GB of video I consume over a 300 GB limit, though? Then I’m not so sure it’s worth it. That’s the world we’re about to enter. What Comcast’s moves are really about For me, the debate over Comcast’s treatment of its streaming Xbox Live app isn’t even about net neutrality or whether it treats the traffic of online competitors any differently than it treats its own. What it really comes down to is, do you want to pay for a TV and VOD service that you can stream to your Xbox or an iPad, computer, or connected TV… Or do you want to piece together an alternative solution from a variety of different streaming services? It’s a judgment between the current value of online video offerings versus what you can get from TV. Due to the relatively cheap nature of most online video services, that made the choice easy for people like me. You could pay $100 for an HD cable package and DVR, or you could pay a couple of different services less than $10 a month each for a lot of similar content on-demand. And you could get those streams on pretty much any device you wanted to access them on. But things are changing rapidly. With the introduction of Comcast’s Xbox app, as well as new applications coming on devices like Samsung Connected TVs and other devices, the cable company is making its service a lot more attractive to potential customers. At the same time, the implementation of usage-based pricing changes the potential cost of online video services and makes bundled pay TV and broadband services a lot more attractive as a result. That’s not to say that the recent moves by Comcast are going to kill the online video industry — I think that Netflix, YouTube and others are beginning to create enough value on their own through device access and new original programming to begin offering a real alternative to cable. But it could make people think twice about how they choose to access content and through what services, if it means additional broadband charges down the line.

TC/Gadgets Webcast: The...

Is The Avengers worth your money? Do the disc-blasting Nerf guns leave a welt? How do you pull a Pebble and rein in $3 million on Kickstarter? In this week’s TC/Gadgets webcast, we answer all this and more. John and Matt argue over the value in one of this summer’s tent pole movies, The Avengers. John finds it boring, while Matt thinks “it’s fun for everyone.” And while I can’t say I’ll be buying a ticket to The Avengers any time soon, I can say with great certainty that I’ll be at one of the opening day showings of Prometheus. Who doesn’t love space, right? The gang also discusses Nerf’s disc-blasting guns , and how they may or may not be used at this weekend’s Disrupt Hackathon . Last year we saw a raucous group of hackers start an all-out war with bungee darts . None of the TC editorial staff was injured (nor were the hackers), but this year we’ll at least have some Nerf Vortex and Vulcan guns slung over our shoulders. You know… Just in case. In the words of the recent Game Of Thrones trailers, “War is coming.” Finally, but likely most importantly, Matt, Chris, John and I offer up some tips as to what we cover on Kickstarter. Matt is done with iPad cases, and though I echo the sentiment, I’ll probably be more willing to make exceptions than he. John prefers the “little tweaks” to things we already use and enjoy, like the automatic bike light that knows when you’re moving. I encourage a strong video, as marketing is a huge driver of any business. But the geeky stuff has its place too — Chris thoroughly enjoyed the electron microscope project that significantly reduced the cost of looking at really, really tiny things.

Twitter Wants An Intere...

Twitter does a lot of things right, but it still hasn’t solved the problem of turning its noise into signal. After joining Twitter, it can take a lot of following and unfollowing scores of accounts before you’ve curated a stream that makes sense for you. With its platform growing fast, Twitter is looking to make the onboarding process a little easier (and more personalized) for new users, which is why it announced today via its blog that it will begin serving users tailored suggestions of who they should follow. Twitter is calling its new personalization features “experiments,” (in other words, they’re in beta), which will manifest for users in several ways. The first being that it will show new users a list of recommended accounts, which will be accompanied by a timeline that features tweets from those recommended accounts. New users (who are part of the beta testing) will see the list as soon as they sign up, but will not be required to follow their suggestions. For those of us already using The Twitters, if you’re a lucky winner, you’ll begin to see Twitter’s suggestions in the “Who To Follow” box on the left side of your homescreen. From what we can tell, the box won’t be altered from its current placement/design, but will instead just start showing more relevant suggestions. To see who Twitter will recommend for you, check out their preview page here . So, how exactly is Twitter going about serving you these recommendations? The suggestions are “based on accounts followed by other Twitter users and visits to websites in the Twitter ecosystem,” meaning that Twitter is culling the data that it receives from other websites that are utilizing its buttons/widgets, identifying the accounts that are most followed by people who visit those sites, and recommending it to you based on similarities with those users in your own Twitter activity. Twitter will be offering the ability to turn this functionality off. This comes with the context of the announcement earlier today that Twitter will be supporting Mozilla’s “Do Not Track” feature, which allows users to opt-out of those pesky third-party cookies, including … wait for it … those used in advertising. This morning, that seemed just a symbolic gesture on Twitter’s part, because they weren’t really tracking you anyway. With the addition of their follow recommendation engine, now this move makes perfect sense, and is obviously timed perfectly. Now Twitter can just say that, hey, if you don’t like it tracking your activity, turn on Do Not Track. As to who’s supporting: Firefox, Safari and IE9 already have some form of Do Not Track features built-in, but it seems that only Firefox is really evangelizing. However, all three browsers should be compatible with DNT, and allow for opt-outs. There is more information about Twitter’s integration with Do Not Track reflected in its privacy policy , so, as mentioned, if you’ve got it enabled in one of those browsers, you won’t see any tailored suggestions. With the heightened interest and concern over the way social networks (and beyond) are using our personal data, this is a smart move on Twitter’s part to ensure users that it’s taking transparency (and privacy) seriously. The other important piece of this is that people who are new to Twitter will see an option to tailor their feeds based on the sites they’re visiting from twitter, accompanied by a “learn more” link, whereas current users will find a “personalization” section added to their account settings. Users can disable personalization at any time, which prevents Twitter from collecting information on your activity, and as the blog post adds, “You can even choose to turn off tailored suggestions from the preview page (which shows some suggestions we’d make for you).” What’s really interesting here is that this is the first sign of Twitter getting serious about building its own interest graph, as if you’d ever get tired of all this “graph” talk, right? But this is the social network’s first big move that shows it following in the footsteps of Facebook, as the more personal info they collect on your interests and activity on their platform, the more info there is to feed targeted advertising and tweets. For more, check out Twitter’s blog post here , and current users c an test out preview here . Do Not Track info here. Do Not Track info here. Additional reporting from Frederic Lardinois

Want To Reach Light TV ...

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: The children are our future. You can learn a lot about the future by watching them, particularly by watching how they use technology and how they consume media, and how that will translate into future business models. Take newspapers, for instance: Somewhere along the line the younger generation stopped reading newspapers, opting instead to get there news online. (This idea seems quaint, now, for those of us who make our livings writing for web-only publications.) Or take my generation, which somewhere along the line decided that it didn’t want land lines — who wants a phone that only rings in a place you’re rarely at?!?! — and went mobile-first, and in most cases, mobile-only. I thought about this trend when I saw a study YouTube did with Nielsen, seeking more information about the elusive “light TV viewers.” So what do we know about them? They’re generally younger — under 49 years old — and they tend to be well-off, college-educated, and highly influential due to their interest in social networking. In other words, they’re a highly coveted demographic among marketers. These aren’t the people who just sit in front of a TV for five hours every day. In fact, they average only about 39 minutes of TV viewing a day, according to the study. But it’s not like they’re great outdoorsmen. Instead, they are finding their entertainment elsewhere — online, on mobile devices, on social networks, etc. YouTube’s goal was to help advertisers better understand and target messages to this strange beast. The cross-media study with Nielsen looked at how effective ads were across TV, YouTube, and the Google Display Network. (GDN) And not surprisingly, the study found that advertisers can better reach kids who don’t really watch TV by also putting their ads on YouTube and GDN. Here are the stats to back those claims up: According to YouTube (and Nielsen), campaigns that included YouTube and GDN added four percentage points of incremental reach to light TV viewers. More importantly, it cost 92 percent less to achieve those results online versus on TV. The study also found that putting ads only on TV didn’t reach some 63 percent of light TV viewers — because duh, they don’t watch TV. But for me, the most interesting thing about this research around the “light TV” segment is that it’s growing, with the number of households opting for broadband Internet over cable TV increasing 22.8 percent over the past year. Granted, that’s 22.8 percent over a very small number, but it’s a much bigger percentage than the increase in the number of people who signed up for cable last year. The point is that, just like the kids who stopped reading newspapers or paying for landlines, we can probably expect this young generation of people who aren’t really that into TV to continue to not really be that into TV. And if that happens, the $100 billion TV advertising industry will need to find other ways of reaching that audience. As seen in the study, YouTube will be one of those channels, and an important one — but frankly, not the only one. We can expect to see TV ad spend shift to multiple new outlets as time goes on and marketers seek to reach an ever-growing number of viewers who are on their mobile phones, tablets, and PCs instead of watching TV.