Apple TV rocks

I bought an Apple TV tonight.

I’ve watched Ask a Ninja, Rocketboom, my show, and Ze Frank on it so far.

Works as advertised. Easy to setup. It rocks.

It makes me want to put out a high res version of my show. But, it’s pretty watchable, even at the low resolution it is.

I’m watching Kevin Schofield on my 60-inch TV on it. The tour he gave me of MS Research’s TechFest really rocks. I’m watching the second part.

I think I’m going to use this almost wholly to look at Internet video shows.

The integration with iTunes really is great. This is a winner. I take back anything I wrote about it before.

Oh, and it also supports 1080i HD. Read the comments, my brother points out that while it says on the menu that it supports 1080i, it actually doesn’t output in that resolution.

I picked it up at the Palo Alto Apple store tonight. They still had them in stock after the Office 2.0 party I attended down the block with Maryam.

Productivity 2.0 to hit hard tomorrow

OK, OK, I hate the “2.0” moniker too, but there’s something happening in the Office space. The shifts happening here are tectonic. Deep. And are NOT about Google vs. Microsoft. If you focus on that you’ll miss the larger shift that’s happening here.

A new raft of services are coming along that are totally changing the workplace. Totally.

This is NOT about replacing Microsoft Office.

It is about something else: collaboration and simplifying our work lives.

Today I saw something that will totally transform my work life. SmartSheet. Its Web site doesn’t do it justice. This isn’t about recruiting. I’m going to use it to totally change how I work with other people.

It’s not the only service I’ve seen that’s doing this, either. More from the Office 2.0 Under the Wire conference tomorrow.

Oh, if you want to go to the Office 2.0 conference too, here’s a discount code (it’s a bit pricey at $595). See ya at 8 a.m.

UPDATE: Brier Dudley of the Seattle Times reports that SmartSheet is using Amazon’s S3 hosting services. That’s a double jolt of bad news for Microsoft. He recommends that Amazon buy SmartSheet and get into the Productivity 2.0 office game. Amazon is just making some brilliant moves lately.

EyeJot on ScobleShow

We have shorter videos and long videos now. 🙂

David Geller comes on ScobleShow to show off EyeJot, which is a cool way to send video emails around to your friends and family and blog readers. Here’s a video of just EyeJot being demonstrated.

[podtech content=]

Loren on “A list”

Posts “stop crying” along with this video.

One thing Loren. What I do isn’t work. I define work as putting a new roof on a building in Dallas in the summer. THAT is work!

Me? I just type fast (and often). 🙂

Or, at least, I hit J, J, J, J, Shift-S fast and often (that’s how I read my feeds, for my link blog).

[podtech content=]

Meeting the geek behind TwitterVision

It’s interesting that out of a crowd of more than 1,000 at Jeff Pulver’s big party last night that the Twitter’ers find each other pretty quickly and easily. At one point a guy came up to me and asked if I was Robert Scoble, then introduced himself as “I wrote TwitterVision.” It was David Troy.

He’s been amazed at the response to it. He’s gotten emails from all over the world. It went up Sunday. He wrote it in four hours using Ruby on Rails. People have been telling him it’s the most addictive thing they’ve seen lately. He finds that almost scary. But, I told him I am probably going to buy a third monitor just to display TwitterVision. It’s just so cool to see Twitters in real time from around the world displayed on a moving Google map.

Anyway, it was fun to hear how he built it. I told him that he should add Starbucks icons randomly in between Twitters. That would freak people out. Thankfully he graciously declined to do that.

If you’re on Twitter you can tell Twitter your location by sending a message with “L:” in it. After the L: you should include your zip code or some other location information that Google Maps will understand. I did L:94019 since that’s my zip code. You’ll see my Twitter messages popup from Half Moon Bay, CA.

Did Google turn down the revenue knob?

Tonight at Jeff Pulver’s awesome party I met a Google employee who I’ll keep nameless. He works closely with the advertising team and found it interesting that I noticed that Google is putting fewer advertisements on each page than its competitor.

For instance, do a Google search for:

San Francisco Sushi.

You’ll find two ads along the top, and three along the side. In a second search I did, the ads on top disappeared and there were only five ads along the side.

There used to be more, the Google employee told me. But, he said, Google has done a lot of research with users and found that fewer ads mean less revenue SHORT TERM. But long term the advertising revenue actually goes up. Why? They found their users started trusting the advertising more and were more likely to click on ads.

Let’s compare. Let’s do the same search on There’s three ads on top, vs. Google’s two and five ads along the side vs. Google’s three.

That’s three fewer ads to click on. But look again at the ads. Which ones are more relevant to the search? One ad, on top, is for the InterContinental Hotel. What, again, does that have to do with Sushi? Another ad is for “free online coupons.” Sushi? I see noise, not good sushi results.

Let’s head over to Yahoo. For the same search on Yahoo I see two ads on top and a whopping eight ads along the side. That’s twice the number of ads that Google has on that page. Damn, Yahoo should be raking in the revenue!

Problem is, the more ads you put on a page, the less they’ll actually work according to Google’s internal research. There’s an ad there for “San Francisco Boutique Hotels.” What does THAT have to do with sushi?

Anyway, Google is doing that to make way for its new “pay per action” advertising type (announced yesterday). This is brilliant. Advertisers are going to LOVE this. Imagine I ran a print shop, like PrintingForLess. Now I could tie my advertising onto actually getting a sale, or getting a good lead. You see why Google needed more relevant advertising before turning this on. They want only potential buyers to see an ad. Anything else is noise. Noise reduces buying behavior.

The thing I’ll be looking for is the next quarter’s financial results. I wonder how big a short-term hit Google will take for displaying fewer ads. I doubt it’ll be big. But long-term you can see where this is going.

Google’s pages look cleaner, more relevant, advertisers are happier (fewer accidental clicks that they have to pay for), and it sets the stage for the new pay-per-action plan.


Oh, and thanks to Jeff Pulver. I hung out with him most of the day and he puts on an amazing event.