Animoto makes your photos and videos into magic

This is republished from Building43, where Rackspace looks for world-changing startups:

Many of us take a lot of photos—either with smartphones or dedicated cameras. But how do you tie those photos together into a multimedia experience that you’ll really want to share? Animoto is answering that question.

Animoto creates high-quality videos out of your own photos, video, and music. “You upload your photos, or retrieve them from another site, or push from another site—SmugMug is one example. Then you pick a song, or upload your own song, and that’s it,” says Brad Jefferson, CEO and co-founder of Animoto. “A few minutes later, you get a custom-rendered video. The feeling that we’re trying to produce is that you hand in your SD card or your iPhone photo album to a real Hollywood editor, director, and producer. What would they do to create a narrative arc and maximize the emotion from the footage that you’ve taken?” Watch the Building43 video here to see how it works.

Business is good at Animoto (they became profitable in late 2008), and today they announce new partnerships with users of and Lightroom. “What we’re trying to solve for is just getting Animoto closer to where the photos already are, so that people don’t have to think about going to our site and then re-uploading,” says Jefferson.

Jefferson says there are possibilities for Animoto on every screen, from a Facebook window to your living room TV. “We think this is how video content needs to be consumed, in a style like Animoto, that really pulls from Hollywood production aesthetics. There’s tons of distribution for that, or products it can be associated with,” he says. “Animoto becomes the movie trailer for your experience.”

More info:
Animoto web site:
Animoto blog:
Animoto profile on CrunchBase:

Chevy Volt's chief engineer says "this ain't no hybrid"

This morning I talked with Andrew Farah, chief engineer for the Chevy Volt, and we talked a lot about the reporting in the press that the Chevy Volt is actually some kind of hybrid car. Turns out it could be seen as some kind of “super hybrid” because the gas engine does kick in at some points and can have its energy transmitted to the road. In practice, though, it doesn’t do that in a way that any hybrid owner would recognize (I own a 2010 Toyota Prius, which is a hybrid car. That car uses the gas engine almost constantly to drive the wheels. You can hear and feel the gas engine kick in on almost all accelerations. On the Volt, when I drove it back at the SXSW conference, the gas engine never kicked in.

Anyway, we cover a few of the interesting points of the drivetrain and battery technology that’s underneath this interesting car.

Why do I care?

Because I think, as an American, that one of the most important issues of our time is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. To do that we need all sorts of innovations to reduce our use of gasoline. Plus, I’m now seeking out conversations every day about world-changing technology and this definitely applies (if you have a world-changing technology you’d like to talk with me about, send me email at or give me a call, like Andrew did, at +1-425-205-1921. Using CinchCast on my iPhone I can record our phone call and put it up within minutes for everyone to listen to.

Will the Chevy Volt win in the marketplace? I don’t know.

Is it fun to drive? Absolutely. It accelerates faster than my Prius does.

Does it use less gas? Absolutely. For the first 40 miles you don’t use much gas at all. Since most of the time that’s more than the miles I drive every day that would be perfect for me (you plug it in at night to charge it up).

Anyway, Americans love their cars and I love talking car tech with smart people who build these things. Hope you enjoy and hope you consider one of these new electric (or super hybrids) ones for your next car purchase. Here you can watch my test drive of the Chevy Volt (I will try to do another test drive of the final car soon):

The cattle (or lack thereof) in Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 strategy

Yesterday I wrote that Microsoft had an “all hat, no cattle” mobile phone strategy with Windows Phone 7.

Today I noticed that, while its herd was thin, Microsoft did indeed show up with some cattle.

What were they?

Office. Office. Sharepoint. Office. Office.

OK, like I said, the devices look great and the OS looks better. This is going to be a fun OS to test out and review. Far more fun than, say, getting the latest Nokia phone or Blackberry. Shows that Microsoft’s “get a new hat” strategy is the only way to go if you want to get back in the game. And Microsoft is back in the game, albeit they will get cleaned off the field the way the Phillies cleaned off whoever they were playing last week.

Like I predicted last night there was very little talk about apps this morning at the launch event. If you compare Microsoft’s phones on just apps and functionality they will come up WAY short. Which is why Techcrunch/CrunchGear is saying that Windows Phone 7 has no future. I don’t believe that. It’s just that they have almost no cattle. Will they be able to get some cattle, and hence, a future? Yeah, I think so. I bet a year from now Microsoft will have succeeded in convincing enough developers to write for the phone to make a competent app store.

The problem is, what will Apple do in that time? Remember Siri? Apple bought them. What if Siri got hooked up to all apps?

In the meantime, Microsoft should celebrate the good press it’s getting overall. I’ve curated the best tweets and press into a bundle (I love, by the way, neat way to let me put bundles of Tweets together).

So, now that you’ve seen Microsoft’s strategy, will you buy in? Me? I’m not switching from my iPhone or Android phones, but I will buy one to try it out. That’s my job, to keep up on latest stuff. But would I recommend you do that? Not until they get more cattle. Office ain’t enough. Not anymore.

On eve of Windows Phone 7 launch: all hat and no cattle?

I’ve played with Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7. I’ve read all the reviews. I’ve talked with Microsoft’s head of PR. Starting tomorrow morning you will hear more about this new OS and OEM’d product line like nothing since Xbox.

I’m just worried it’s all hat and no cattle.

First, the “hat.”

This OS is beautiful. Unlike Nokia or RIM, Microsoft threw out the old OS and started from scratch. For the first time in a while they didn’t just copy Apple, either. They did a whole new UI from scratch. It uses tiles instead of the little icons on my iPhone. It has a very nice contact manager. It shows you all sorts of information from services and your social network up front.

Buyers who see it in stores will be very impressed and we haven’t really seen the final hardware yet (although tonight on Techmeme some of those details are leaking out as well).

Microsoft has also, according to developers I’ve talked with, spread money out to get the hottest applications ported to Windows Phone 7. I’m sure you’ll see nice Twitter and Facebook apps, along with a good selection of the other kinds of apps that have gotten popular on iPhone and on Android.

Tomorrow we’ll watch to see just what kinds of apps will be released to match those that I love on iPhone. I’m sure that a high percentage are available out the door, and ones that aren’t, like Angry Birds seems not to be, will face a lot of pressure from Microsoft’s money to get on board.

So, what’s the “no cattle?”

1. It doesn’t look like it’ll be available on Verizon. Sorry, but T-Mobile is worse than AT&T (T-Mobile doesn’t even work in my house, while AT&T does). Most of the people who are anti iPhone are that way because of AT&T, not because the OS doesn’t have cool tiles or their Facebook news feed isn’t displayed on the home screen.
2. I would be surprised if there are close to 30,000 apps available to start. Compare to Android, with more than 100,000, and iPhone, with 270,000. In fact, I’ll be amazed if they ship more than 3,000 apps to start. More on why this matters in a second.
3. There will be bugs. One thing I learned while working at Microsoft is that it ships software with bugs. Duh. But so does Apple. The thing is Apple has had several years now to “harden” its OS. Plus, every app developer has shipped many bug fixes. So the whole ecosystem over on Apple is much stronger and less buggy. In just the past week more than 30 of my 356 apps on my iPhone 4 have updated. Most of my favorite apps like Twitter, Facebook (which still sucks on iPhone), Foursquare, etc have had more than five iterative releases.

So, why do apps matter so much?

Because when customers go into their favorite cell phone stores they will be comparing phones to ones their friends have. They do not want to look stupid with their friends. Imagine on Thanksgiving dinner the conversation happens like this:

“Hey, I just got one of those new Windows Phone 7 devices, wanna check it out, I bet it kicks your iPhone’s butt.”

“Sure, but does it have the ‘Bump’ app?”

“Whoa, what’s that?”

“It lets me bump my contact info to you. In fact, another app, the PayPal one, lets me bump you some money. Do you have that? I’ll bump you five bucks.”

“Um, not sure.”

“How about the Twitter app, does your support lists and search? Can you, like Seesmic lets you, post to Google Buzz,, Facebook, and multiple Twitter accounts from one app?”

“Not sure.”

“Do you have the CNN news app that lets you watch live TV? I watched the San Bruno fire live on it. How about SkyGrid? NYTimes? NPR? BBC?”

“Not sure.”

“Can you use RunKeeper or Cyclemeter while you jog or ride your bike?”

“Not sure.”

“Can you check in on Foursquare, Gowalla, Whrrl, Loopt, DeHood, MyTown, Brightkite, to get deals and tell your friends where you are?”

“Not sure, but why would you do that?”

“Can you use Trapster to see where the cops on the freeway are? How about Waze to see driving conditions from other people? Goby to find hiking trails and parks near you?”

“Not sure those are on Windows Phone 7 yet.”

“Can you use TripIt or WorldMate to see flight info? TripAdvisor to find vacation spots? GateGuru to find out what gate your flight home is at? FlightTrack to track your nephew’s flight? Layar to see augmented reality info of that city you’ll visit next? Is Kayak or Hipmunk available to help you find the cheapest and best flights?”

“Not sure.”

“Is Pandora, Shazam, NPR Music, Boxee, Sonos,, available on your phone yet?”

“Not sure.”

“Can you play all that music you bought on iTunes?”

“Not sure.”

“Can you use PogoPlug to get access to files on your home computers the way I can?”

“Not sure.”

“Do you have all these photo apps? (Points to an iPhone group with SmugShot, Animoto, Hipstamatic,, Pixelpipe, Flickr, PS Express, Best Camera app, and many more)


“Do you have all these popular games?” (Points to a group with Doodle Jump, Tap Tap Revolution, Angry Birds and more).

“No, but I have some cool games here.”

“Do you have Hulu Plus, Fandango, Netflix, Clicker, and other apps to help you enjoy TV more?”

“Not sure.”

“Do you have UberCab?”

“What’s that?”

“Well, I guess I’m gonna order the cab for you tonight.”

“Do you have Google Voice? How about this cool Star Walk app that shows you the stars.”

“Well, the World Wide Telescope is on my phone.”

“Oh, cool, win one for you, except I’ve had that for a year.”

“Should we just keep going down the list of apps on Chomp that are popular and see if you can find the same ones on Windows Mobile Phone 7?”

“Nah, I already get the point that my phone isn’t as good as yours is.”

You get the point. The long tail of apps DOES matter. It matters for the same reason why Microsoft wasn’t able to remove features from Excel. Each app has hundreds of thousands of users. I met one developer last week in San Antonio, who built FastMall, shows you how to navigate shopping malls. They just released an update few weeks ago. They already have 250,000 users on iPhone. They said they won’t port to Windows Phone 7 until Microsoft proves that their phone can sell lots of units and that users on its platform are willing to download apps. That’s something I’m hearing from around the third-party developer world.

This is why on Fox last week I said that Microsoft is in a deep hole and we need at least six months to know whether they have a chance at digging out of the hole. In the meantime, damn that UI sure is pretty! It’s all hat and possibly no cattle time.

Of course, that’s a whole lot better than the situation Nokia and RIM find themselves in. At least when developers want to build apps for Microsoft’s OS they’ll find very nice developer tools and lots of help (Channel9 will have lots of info tomorrow, and Microsoft is holding a PDC later in October that will be live streamed on the Internet). The few developers who are building apps for Windows Phone 7 are praising the tools as easier to use than Android, or especially Nokia or RIM’s tools.

So, while tomorrow might be a little light on apps Microsoft does hold hope that it’ll have enough cattle in its farm. We’ll see. The event starts at 6:30 a.m. Pacific Time and I’ll be retweeting the best info.

Why do technology research? Is Google's car going to lead anywhere?

By now you know Google is doing research into making cars drive by themselves. This continues research done earlier at Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, and other places. If you really want to see innovation, watch the interview I did back in 2007 with Mike Montemerlo. He was the artificial intelligence guy behind Stanford’s DARPA challenge team (they won that contest back in 2005 and have been competitive ever since).

I remember thinking that Mike was doing the coolest stuff and that of all the geeks I met he had the greatest chance of really changing how the world works. After all, most of us spend hours per week in our cars, especially in California where public transportation options suck (I could take a bus to San Francisco, for instance, but I’d have to switch routes half a dozen times and it would take three hours, instead of the 45 minutes it takes driving.

So, why is Google doing this research?

Why is IBM, a few miles away, doing research into atomic structures?

Why is Microsoft doing research into “any surface” computing that they call LightSpace?

A few weeks ago I was in Andy Wilson’s lab, talking with him about LightSpace. He asked me not to film, but you can see the video of his lab here. Who is Andy? Well, he was the researcher that came up with the ideas that turned into Microsoft Surface. He is doing some of the coolest research into futuristic computing technologies that I’ve seen anywhere. You really need to see Andy’s video (sorry, you’ll need Microsoft’s Silverlight loaded to view this video):

At IBM they let me move a single Iron atom across a piece of copper. And, at Stanford they are doing all sorts of research, including into weird flying robots that can be used for a bunch of different things (heck, one attacked me).

So, what are these folks telling me they do pure research for?

1. To figure out what’s needed from infrastructure in the future.
2. To discover how humans will use technology and how the technology will need to adapt to the humans.
3. To figure out how to affordably build futuristic tech.
4. To help researchers connect with each other and push the state of the art further.
5. To write up patents that will be the economic engines of their sponsoring companies.
6. To claim ground as “world leader” in a certain tech.
7. To build an ecosystem that turns into an industry (look at Boeing’s 787, for instance, and how its parts come from companies all over the world).

So, in that light, lets look at Google’s new self-driving car. Will it lead anywhere?

Here’s some things that research could lead to:

1. Better turn-by-turn directions for cars.
2. Better real-time mapping information. My Toyota already tells me whether there’s gas stations, hotels, or fast food at the next freeway exit. I imagine Google’s cars can tell you a lot more than that.
3. Better road design. Always look for unintended consequences of tech research. Remember, the Web came out of CERN who was smashing atoms. Google’s cameras can pick up confusing road design and map it for crews to fix, leading to safer roads for us all. My Toyota has trouble discerning old paint, for instance. Will these technologies be able to tell road managers when it’s time to repaint lanes?
4. New kinds of traffic controls. Listen to Mike and he’ll tell you the algorithms he had to write to get robotic cars safely through intersections. Will this new car research inform us as to the kinds of traffic controls (signs, lights, etc) that we’ll need in the future? Will it help us build new light timing systems to help traffic move smoothly?
5. New kinds of 3D control surfaces. These cars are building detailed 3D maps of the space that they travel through. Will those new surfaces need new controls? Of course! Second Life isn’t good enough for the data these cars are collecting.
6. New kinds of infrastructure. Each time these cars drive they gather gigabytes and, potentially, terabytes, of information. Now, imagine millions of cars that all could report home about what they were seeing on the road. That will require building new datacenters, new ways of filtering that information, and new database technology that can handle huge amounts of real-time info.
7. New kinds of human/computer interactions. If your car is going to drive itself, at least some of the time, you’ll need new kinds of input methods (voice? Touch? Gestures?) and they will need to be tested out on a lot more than 140,000 miles that these Google cars have driven so far.

Anyway, there’s lots to learn. I’m glad that the tech industry is taking on research in these, and other, areas. Even ones where people might say “that’s lame.” I remember when my friends told me Twitter is lame, but now it’s very important way to get the news.

Or, as Techcrunch’s Mike Arrington says, why do it? Because they can!

If you are doing world-changing technology research I would love to come and visit you. Send me email at or call me at +1-425-205-1921

Why else do research? Comment here and let me know if you are doing technology research and why you’re doing it.

State of the art of self-driving cars on road today (Google, Ford, and Toyota)

I’ve been a fan of autonomous cars so when Google announced today that they had actually built and tested a self-driving car, that was quite cool news. Read the New York Times article about the self-driving Google car done by John Markoff. That is pretty cool. Google, itself, talked about the technology in a blog post.

Turns out I actually caught one of these cars driving on Freeway 280 in January, reports Techcrunch and, back in 2007, I interviewed one of the guys, Mike Montemerlo, who now works on the Google Car (it’s a fascinating interview, great look into an innovative mind and where he was going with this technology). I wondered why the Google guys braked suddenly to avoid my video camera. I had a feeling they were testing something secret, but couldn’t figure out what from just looking at the car from the outside.

But, did you know there are cars on the road today that get close to driving themselves? I own one of those, a 2010 Toyota Prius. In my car there’s radar that senses the road ahead and a camera that looks at lane markings. I filmed a video to show how it works. It even works on curvy roads. Now Google’s car goes a lot further because it has digital images and 3D maps of the road ahead and even more sensors and algorithms that let it even drive through intersections.

Check this video out:

Toyota isn’t the only one using assisted driving technlogies, either. Back in January I interviewed the head of safety at Ford, who showed me what its system does and how it can sense cars ahead on the road and help drivers avoid accidents.

A lot of people are afraid of these technologies, but already they have helped me avoid accidents. They can see cars ahead of you at night even if they don’t have their lights on. I’ve encountered that several times, very dangerous if they are driving slowly and you’re going faster. Also, if my car senses that it is about to get in an accident, it tugs on the seatbelts and pre-fires the brakes, which makes them ultra sensitive so that I can get more braking in before an accident (you really must watch the Ford interviews to understand how important that is).

To me, these technologies will save lives and let you do other things while driving. Maybe someday it’ll be legal to text and drive — but only if you have a self-driving car.

I’d pay a lot of money for an even better system. This would greatly improve my life — in just the 15 months since getting the Toyota I’ve put 26,000 miles on it. At 55 miles per hour that’s 472 hours of driving. I use my car’s computer more than my TV or nearly any other computer in my life. I’d be willing to spend $1,000 to $3,000 per year to make that experience better (the assisted driving technologies in my Toyota came as part of a $6,000 package, which includes better headlights, better audio system, self-parking tech, and the assisted cruise control, among other things).

That’s the business model behind these things. The trick is, can Google find a way to make them cheap enough?

I won’t buy a car without them now (our new Sienna minivan has the radar-assisted cruise control as well).

One thing. I don’t think we’ll see truly autonomous cars, like the Google ones, for quite some while. Why? Legal questions of responsibility. Plus, the Google car can’t drive on my street (it hasn’t been captured with a Google Mapping car yet) and just imagine that there’s a bug in the map, or something, that causes a driver to get killed.

I believe this is why my car will only gently nudge me back into the lane if I drift out of the lane. It requires the driver to stay fully engaged in the process of driving, even though it is assisting the driver. The legal questions of letting a driver go to sleep while a car is moving down the road are just too great for 2010. I bet these legal questions will take a decade to answer. But they will be answered. I’m fully certain that my sons will be driving fully automated cars and that makes me quite happy. The computers inside are safer than most adults.

Oh, and as for the Google self-driving car? I actually caught it twice. Once with my iPhone:

And once with my Canon 5D MKII. Notice this time they noticed me shooting and stepped sharply on the brakes so I couldn’t take good video of the inside. (You can switch to 1080p high def video on this one, to get a good look).

Update: I interviewed the guy, Mike Montemerlo, who works on the team that built the Google car. That was back in 2007 when he was doing his research at Stanford. That interview is very fascinating because it gives you a real look into one of the the innovative minds behind this technology.

Facebook does better than Twitter lists (they don't enforce a power law)

I’ve already built a half-dozen groups on my Facebook profile (groups is a new feature that Facebook announced this morning). In my experience they are Twitter lists done right.

Twitter lists always had a lot of promise. Look at my lists. I have lists of venture capitalists. Lists of entrepreneurs. Lists of executives. Lists of journalists. Lists of pundits. Lists of companies. And more.

But over the last year since Twitter shipped its lists feature I’ve noticed a few problems.

1. Subscribing to, er, following, a list doesn’t do anything to your main feed.
2. A list can only have 500 members. One problem, I know about 800 executives already, and I’m discovering new ones every day. So, if, say, Steve Ballmer were to join Twitter and I wanted him on the list I’d have to remove someone already on the list.
3. I can have no more than 20 lists. I already have 20 lists, so if I were to keep a “executive A-F” list and another one for “G-Z” I’d have to put that on a new Twitter account. That doesn’t work.
4. No one can send a message to other people who are on the list. In fact, you might be on lots of lists and people could be talking to you but you’ll have no clue about that.
5. No way to DM or chat with other people on the list.

Now compare to Facebook’s new Groups.

First, listen to Mark Zuckerberg talk to me about the new features (Groups is one of three new features Facebook announced this morning — in the interview Zuck goes into depth about the groups feature after he talks about the other two features).

But then consider just how much better Facebook’s groups are than Twitter’s lists.

They don’t have any of the above issues. That’s all great, but on Twitter there’s a power law that’s enforced.

Let’s say you are a hot new tech blogger, for instance. How can you get on my list? You can’t. I’ve filled up my list. So, until you convince me to kick someone else off, you won’t get on. That’s a power law that’s being enforced. Needlessly, too.

But even better, all my Facebook groups are now open to members to invite other people onto (the group founder has to change the settings to allow that). For instance, I have a Tech news and bloggers group. I didn’t invite half the people who are already on the list onto it. Zuckerberg explains how that’s controllable in our interview.

Everyone invited on can talk with each other. That’s very cool. Something that Twitter groups can’t do. That is an anti power law feature. Yeah, I, as administrator, can remove people, but generally I’m learning about some new people who friends of mine like. That is massively cool. I wish that could happen on Twitter. Or, at least, that I had a choice to make that happen on Twitter because there’s no way I can know every tech journalist/blogger in the world. Not to mention every VC, every executive, every pundit, every event manager, etc etc.

Now, take this into a smaller group setting. What about a family group? Well, I don’t know all of Maryam’s cousins who live in Tehran. So, if I had a Twitter list, it would be woefully incomplete. But on Facebook she can start a group and I can add to it. So can every member of it. That is massively cool, even for a family group. For an industry group, or a company group, that’s even more important.

Anyway, Facebook gets this social stuff at a level that most don’t. Listen to how Zuckerberg talks about the experience of me adding him to a group. It’s a nuanced view and one that goes way beyond what I hear from Twitter and Google. Apple? They have no clue. Nokia and Microsoft? No clue either.

Why is Zuck king of the social world? Well, start a group and we’ll talk about it!