SiliconANGLE » New Media vs. Old Media

Google: Don’t Force a Merge Between G+ and YouTube for Upvotes

Kit Dotson — Wed, 02 May 2012 22:01:51 +0000

It may be a matter of a development mistake or it could be that Google is on the verge of a drop over a very serious precipice: merging G+ and YouTube and forcing users to have G+ accounts in order to upvote videos.

Last night, well-known science fiction actor Wil Wheaton—who played Westly Crusher on Star Trek: The Next Generation—posted with some fury on Tumblr that he’d been pricked by Google+ when he tried to upvote a video on YouTube.

Needless to say, he was somewhat heated over this usurpation of his social sovereignty,

Oh, go fuck yourself, Google. This is just as bad as companies forcing me to “like” something on Facebook before I can view whatever it is they want me to “like.”

Just let me thumbs up something, without forcing me to “upgrade” to G+, you dickheads.

Today, Wheaton has developed a calmer and well spoken case against what Google might be doing with G+ on Gizmodo,

Yesterday, I tried to like a video on YouTube. I wasn’t signed in to my Google Plus account, and this is what I saw:

Where the thumbs up and thumbs down used to be, there is now a big G+ Like button. When you go anywhere near it, you get a little popup that tells you to “upgrade to Google plus” for some reason that I don’t remember, because the instant I saw it, I made a rageface.

I haven’t seen this happen myself (and it hasn’t happened to me personally) but more anecdotes about this are beginning to crop up that I’m not about to dismiss its appearance. Someone at Google or YouTube is letting a stampede of bugs into the general population and the result isn’t pretty.

Since the advent of Google+ we’ve been seeing Google try to tie together as many of their holdings as possible. They’ve been doing spring cleaning, killing old labs, merging others, they swept away Google Wave, and dropped many of the social features within Google Reader. As Google has acquired YouTube some time ago, it isn’t entirely unexpected that they might try to hook it into G+ in some fashion.

This is not how to do it.

Certainly there are huge benefits to integrating Google+ and YouTube, such as being able to easily share YouTube videos via the social platform and allow comments to intermingle. The more places that I can get my videos viewed and allow discussion, the better. However, YouTube itself is also its own social microcosm, the website runs a great deal of promotions, features, and acts as a testbed for indie producers, and citizen journalism.

Google would be better off keeping the upvote-downvote system of YouTube and adding a “Share on G+” toggle the way that they integrate Facebook and Twitter already.

As Wheaton goes on, it’s that microcosm community that YouTube has built up that a produces the landscape for developers, producers, video makers, and others to get known and become part of promotions and networks. Stripping that out and inputting the G+ social networking instead will rip out the innards of the civilized petri-dish that YouTube has been for quite some time. It will not just upset the natural order; but it will dissolve and neutralize all the hard work done by celebrities and hard working indie developers on the video site.

I fall in behind John Green, who reblogged Wheaton’s message last night,

I strongly agree with this. Making it so that only google plus users can decide whether a YouTube video is worth watching benefits no one except for Google Plus: It is bad for viewers, bad for video creators, and bad for YouTube’s ability to curate and tailor videos to potential viewers.

We’re better off having Google+ benefit YouTube, the video makers and viewers, rather than bolstering the social media at their expense.

Google: Don’t Force a Merge Between G+ and YouTube for Upvotes is a post from: SiliconANGLE
We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

Will Cable and Satellite Mean the Death of Free Hulu Internet TV?

Kit Dotson — Wed, 02 May 2012 19:52:54 +0000

Dark rumors and accusations seem to be telling a compelling narrative about Hulu—the broadly popular venue for free Internet TV (supported by advertisements)—potentially backing away from offering their media without strings to the pubic and instead requiring cable or satellite authentication.

The New York Post reports that sources told them that this might be the intent of Hulu and it leads an explanation as to why Providence Equity Partners has left the Internet TV outfit after almost five years and $200 million of support. According to the numbers, Hulu has attracted in excess of 31 million unique users in March, all under their free-for-all model; but that is potentially soon to dwindle.

Under the new model, users will log into Hulu using authentication numbers received from their local cable or satellite TV network—meaning, from the outset, that if you don’t happen to have a customer number for cable or satellite TV then you’re out of luck.

What this will do to Hulu-centric shows such as Endgame or The Booth at the End is anyone’s guess. Being part of a free-to-watch model means that advertisers and producers have an audience they otherwise couldn’t reach via conventional distribution networks.

Hulu, owned by News Corp., Disney, Comcast and Providence, could see its March audience, as measured by ComScore, shrink after authentication. Hulu racked up some $420 million in ad revenue last year and is expected to do well in this year’s ad negotiations.

But the move toward authentication, which could take years to complete, will make cable companies happy because it could slow cord-cutting by making cable subscribing more attractive.

At the same time, networks are asking cable companies for retransmission money, a process that could be more appetizing for Comcast and its rivals if their subscriber base stopped shrinking.

We’ve spoken about cord-cutting as a phenomenon before on SiliconANGLE and it’s a potential fear of many cable outfits, which is why Editor in Chief Mark Hopkins believes this move has Comcast’s fingerprints all over it.

“This will end Hulu,” Hopkins says. “This has the fingerprint of Comcast (NBC’s new owner) all over it.”

Subscription-based services receive both a monthly fee from users and they display commercials (often more commercials than venues like Hulu) but are cumbersome and expensive. As a result, they’ve been eschewed by much of the Internet TV subscriber base for cheaper options—after all, why pay for cable or satellite when the Internet is already something we pay for.

Even Hulu sought to may extra money by offering Hulu+ in order to compete with Amazon Prime’s streaming, Netflix, and even YouTube. Although insofar Hulu has been the best option for organized, good content without a subscription—Netflix and Amazon Prime both have a subscription, and licensing wars with HBO, Starz, and media networks continue to rip holes in their capability to provide content.

We’ve seen set-to-boxes begin to edge into the marketplace because they offer the capability of bringing Internet TV into the home via extra subscriptions atop fees to an ISP. We’ve also seen Xbox LIVE narrowing in as entertainment-center for media produced via various outfits (but for a cable-like subscription.)

If this is a cynical move by Comcast to tighten their grip over Hulu and push out competition by making sure that viewers have no place to go, it will change the Internet TV landscape. As a free-TV offering, Hulu has made an amazing run. We’ve seen statistics that say that advertisers who show ads on their network get a higher eyeball return (or at least people watch them more often instead of ducking out for the commercial break) and the number of visitors to watch streaming shows means that the producers of these features get a lot of attention themselves.

Cable may be shaking in their boots at this prospect; but perhaps they should be embracing it instead and convince their networks to license more work to distributors like Hulu rather than trying to choke them out.

Will Cable and Satellite Mean the Death of Free Hulu Internet TV? is a post from: SiliconANGLE
We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

PR Newswire Launches Dedicated Site for Bloggers

Angela Connor — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:53:56 +0000

NEW YORK, April 16, 2012 /PRNewswire/ – PR Newswire, the global leader of innovative marketing and communications solutions, today announced the launch of PR Newswire… for bloggers , a dedicated resource for self publishers, online journalists, hobbyists and other members of the ever-growing blogosphere.

PR Newswire… for bloggers features both original and third-party content relevant to a blogging audience, while also providing information about the range of services PR Newswire offers to bloggers, such as customized newsfeeds, listings of upcoming events, a news widget for websites and blogger media tour opportunities.

“PR Newswire recognizes the growing influence of bloggers and our goal is to make it as easy as possible for them to access the content, tools and information they need to develop their blogs and increase visibility,” said Thomas Hynes, manager, blogger relations, PR Newswire. “PR Newswire…for bloggers is designed to be a one-stop shop, consolidating numerous resources into one comprehensive and easy-to-navigate space.”

Furthermore, each week, five new blogs are reviewed and profiled on the site. The compilation of blog reviews illustrates strong examples of blogging on a variety of subject matters. Currently, the site includes reviews of food, film and education blogs. The chosen bloggers are also given a badge of recognition from PR Newswire to display on their site.

“There are so many great blogs out there – and that list grows daily,” said Hynes. “Our goal is to highlight some of those blogs we find interesting or influential – which ultimately comes down to engaging content. Fortunately, there is no shortage of great blogs publishing just that so we shouldn’t run out of candidates any time soon.”

For more information on what PR Newswire is offering to bloggers, visit:

http://www.prnewswire.com/bloggers

[Cross-posted at Online Community Strategist]

PR Newswire Launches Dedicated Site for Bloggers is a post from: SiliconANGLE
We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

New Revenue Opportunities for Newspapers: Teaching

Tom Foremski — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:49:26 +0000

Foremski’s Take: The Guardian newspaper’s plans to offer courses in digital media production is an important development and one that should be followed by US newspapers. It would provide much needed revenues to many struggling media businesses.

[Every Company Is A Media Company - The Guardian Newspaper Will Teach You How]

I’ve written many times that the future of journalism is in helping communities, which includes businesses, to tell their stories. Media literacy is important but that’s just one side of the coin: knowing how to produce and publish digital media is just as important, maybe more.

Freedom of speech is pointless if you don’t know how to make it heard. Newspapers know how and they can teach that know-how to others.

It used to be that you needed a hugely expensive printing press or a TV studio to learn how to create and publish media. The cost of equipment is no longer an issue but the quality of the content is an issue.

The skills needed to create compelling and ethical media are not easy but they can be taught and media companies are in a great position to offer such services.

In the not too distant future we will teach basic media authoring skills to kids as soon as they’ve figured out how to read: how to produce and edit videos, posting on a blog, reporting, interviewing techniques, audio recording, and photography. Then some basic HTML and CSS before middle school.

Media skills will become as common as knowing how to write your name. But in the meantime there’s a good business in teaching those skills to other businesses.

Community newsrooms

US newspapers have a great opportunity to build on what The Guardian is doing, by getting into the education business. There are both public and commercial benefits.

If a city newspaper can teach its communities how to produce great media, it’ll not only create enormous goodwill but also gain access to growing numbers of citizen journalists who know what they are doing — and know how to do it well. The newspaper would get some great content at very little cost.

New business services

Every company is a media company but most don’t know how to be a media company yet this is now an essential competitive requirement. This is a great commercial opportunity for a media company.

The $14,000 per person that The Guardian Media group intends to charge for its courses is not expensive, most corporations have budgets that can afford to pay that and more.

Businesses are desperate for compelling, high quality media that tells their stories authentically.

Currently, businesses turn to PR firms to help them in get their stories published, and to teach them how to work with journalists. All PR firms offer “media training” to their clients but their interest is to control and restrict what’s said – rather than create open communications with the media.

We could do with less of this type of media training. If we have open dialogues between businesses and the general media, we might then be better able to spot big problems early.
Gatekeepers and watchtowers

The financial meltdown in late 2008 led to many questions from politicians, and from the media itself— how come reporters hadn’t seen the financial crisis coming? Why had the media not investigated the business practices of mortgage firms and Wall Street? Why was there so little communication prior to the crisis?

Was this a failure of business reporters to dig deeper? Maybe, but teaching better media communications skills to business executives, especially by a media company instead of a PR firm, would be a step in the right direction.
Storytelling

All businesses want to know how best to tell their stories. Who better to tell them than a media company? Surely it’s better to learn from people that do it everyday instead of those that don’t?

Newspapers could teach executives about how best to contact them, how to talk with them, what they need, how soon they need it, what they should not fear in saying; and educate them about media production, how the news cycle operates, how a newsroom works, the teamwork in producing a news story.

It’s shocking how little business people know about how to speak with the media and how little they know how the media sausage is made. But it’s understandable if they solely rely on PR firms.

Media training by media companies would improve business communications, resulting in greater transparency and light into the world of business. And it would help separate the word “shady” from its far too common companion: “business practices.”

[Cross-posted at Silicon Valley Watcher]

New Revenue Opportunities for Newspapers: Teaching is a post from: SiliconANGLE
We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

Super PACs and Social Media: Another Ploy for 2012

Saroj Kar — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:21:18 +0000

Traditionally, political communication is understood as the space in which the applicant sends a mass message to the public with the intent to persuade their decision to vote. Under this logic, voters had only opinion polls and surveys as the most direct routes to provide feedback to candidates.

With the impact of social networks on the evolution in political communication (i.e., the tendency to conceive online users that facilitate interaction and collaboration between candidates and supporters), the layout of information exchange between senders and receivers have been modified. Bottom line, social networking sites help people communicate better, creating structured online human networks and extending that to the upcoming presidential election.

The Social Trend

Social networks are a way for politicians to be credible and to enhance their image. Traditional media outlets are losing their effectiveness in the presidential campaigns, unable to react as quickly as social networks during debates and other political developments.

Through social media, politicians have the ability to address millions from a central platform, creating a genuine community and a strong sense of belonging.

President Obama realized this to a greater extent than anyone else. During the 2008 election, Obama incited a younger generation of voters and actively discussed and posted his political views on social media sites. Last year when the 2012 presidential election began to kick off, Obama had five times as Twitter followers and eight times as many Facebook fans as the combined Republicans. He was also quite active on YouTube to answering questions submitted on the video-sharing network.

Obama currently has more 13 million followers on Twitter and 25.5 million likes on Facebook, while his opponent Mitt Romney has about 376,000 followers and 1.5 million likes, followed by Newt Gingrich has more than 1.4 million followers and 295,979 likes.

Google has dedicated one website for documenting the digital campaign trail on social media’s impact on the 2012 election.

“More than 600 politicians have a YouTube channel. There are so many ways to get your message out that you want to curate as a politician, but then on the other side, your detractors, but even more importantly, the average citizen can be heard. It’s really changed the game in so many ways,” said Jonathan Perelman, global lead in industry relations for Google.

Facebook is the place where presidential candidates have their personalized Facebook pages, which is attracting more surfers. The pages are also integrated with additional applications, facilitating more interaction with fans.

Super PAC Phenomenon Plays Decisive Role in Election

Ten of millions of people are receiving a personal email from Rufus Gifford, the national financial director of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, addressing people by their first names and asking them to donate to the presidential campaign.

The campaign’s Super PACs came of the ‘legal birth’ of the Supreme Court of the United States in 2010, in the judgment called Citizens United, which ruled that corporations have the same right to freedom of expression compared to individuals.

In 2010, eighty Super PAC organizations were registered with the Federal Election Commission. For the 2012 elections, the number reached to 250. Each presidential candidate has his own Super PAC run by politicians of his confidence, and in many cases have been his political advisers in the past or have worked with them in government positions.

Advertising at the Highest Level

Even before the real election battle, the Super PACs have raised about $32 million in 2010, while spending about $90 million. It is estimated that both the Obama and the Republican candidate Romney may get to raise $1000 million by the end of the 2012 presidential election.

According to an infographic from visual.ly, the Obama campaign has so far collected more than $139 million, the national party committees and the Congress $208 million, and the Super PAC $32 million. The report also reveals about 69 percent of people, or nearly 7 in 10 Americans, believe that super PACs should be made illegal.

Restore Our Future is the Super PAC behind Mitt Romney. In Iowa, the group spent $16 million in advertising. Almost half of the ads were funded by this group that supports Mitt Romney against Newt Gingrich. It is estimated that Restore Our Future has raised about $30 million as of February 2012.

Winning our Future, Gingrich’s Super PAC, has received $5 million from Sheldon Adelson, a casino owner in Las Vegas and a personal friend of Gingrich.

The U.S. Presidential election is just a few months away and these candidates are heading to social networking sites, flagging their campaign with digital attentiveness. It will be as or more impactful than the 2008 campaign, where social media was new to the presidential election. Everyone is fully armed and ready for social media integration, making for a fiercer competition amongst candidates this time around.

Super PACs and Social Media: Another Ploy for 2012 is a post from: SiliconANGLE
We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

The Guardian’s Google Revenue Fantasy – And the Future of Newsrooms

Tom Foremski — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:07:37 +0000

The UK newspaper The Guardian, claims that Google’s Android operating system is far less valuable than Google’s revenues from Apple devices.

Google’s Android has generated just $550m since 2008, figures suggest | Technology | The Guardian

Android generated less than $550m in revenues for Google between 2008 and the end of 2011, if figures provided by the search giant as part of a settlement offer with Oracle ahead of an expected patent and copyright infringement trial are an accurate guide.

The figures also suggest that Apple devices such as the iPhone, which use products such as its Maps as well as Google Search in its Safari browser, generated more than four times as much revenue for Google as its own handsets in the same period.

The Guardian showed its calculations to Google, but there was no response. And for good reason — the calculations are pure fantasy.

The Guardian report readily admits, “The court documents (PDF) do not explain how the Android revenue is calculated.”

There’s no leg work there’s just back of the envelope estimates with no solid sourcing. But there is a great story to be discovered.

For example, if Google’s numbers relate to ad revenues through Android then does that mean every ad network or publisher using Android will also have to pay Oracle?

Or is Google’s license payment shouldering liability for the entire advertising revenue stream through Android? Would a license deal between Google and Oracle create a competitive barrier?

Apple gets paid by the Telcos for signups, about $200 each. Does Google get any signup revenues because of Android?

It’s all part of a much bigger unfolding story, the fastest change in our commercial infrastructure that we’ve ever witnessed.

But its also a time to be wary because Moore’s Law moves faster than people can make new laws. The Internet makes possible new forms of commerce and new opportunities for distributing wealth, and they won’t all be good ones. We’re heading for truly transformative times, imho.

Which is why I would hope that The Guardian, the New York Times, and the many other award winning newsrooms everywhere, would double-down, and triple-down their investigative resources on Google et al. and investigate the business of the Internet — it’s a very rich lode and we’ve only just begun.

There are massively important stories yet to be written about the business of the Internet, ones that will change laws.

There are stories to be written with a potential impact greater than Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle”.

Bloggers don’t have the resources for investigative journalism but newsrooms do. Let admins re-write press releases — put the reporters to work on purely original content. After all, what else is there for a newsroom to do that couldn’t be done for far less money? (as is being done).

Original content means you can only get it here — and it’s still the top currency in the news business — the only problem is that the exchange rate sucks.

But exchange rates can rise. We know that markets value scarcity so they’ll adjust and rightly reward original content, putting into motion a sustainable and moderately lucrative business cycle of original content creation, on which a layer of bloggers and aggregators can also thrive.

- – -

UPDATE:

Oracle rejected Google’s offer to drop the court case, clearly Oracle doesn’t believe in Google’s accounting. Oracle has a nose for such things that it learned the hard way.

[Cross-posted at Silicon Valley Watcher]

The Guardian’s Google Revenue Fantasy – And the Future of Newsrooms is a post from: SiliconANGLE
We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

Presidential Candidates Are Doing the Obama

Mellisa Tolentino — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:00:56 +0000

The U.S. Presidential election is just a few months away, and campaigning has come a long way since 2007. Before, during the campaign period, you’d see thousands of fliers, posters, leaflets etc. making their way to the streets, but now, these candidates are heading to the streets of cyberspace, particularly social networking sites, paving their campaign trails with digital diligence.

Do the Obama

Since President Barack Obama’s win in 2008’s Presidential election, candidates are now looking to “Do an Obama” – meaning they want to leverage social networking sites to gain supporters. But using social media as a platform for election campaign may not be suitable for everyone, as it can be quite tricky. You have to take into consideration how the public will view you as a candidate campaigning on the internet.

“In order to effectively push through the clutter, you have to have a message that is real and true, authentic and credible,” veteran Democratic media consultant Jim Margolis stated. “And voters must be targeted and reached on their terms.”

If you ask President Obama, he would of course say that the “Obama strategy works,” as he is using it again for this year’s election again. If you go to President Obama’s site, you can see the Twitter feeds for @BarackObama and @Obama2012 on the right side, and all the posts on the site can be easily shared to your Facebook and Twitter account. This just shows how his election campaign team sees social media as a very powerful tool.

President Obama is leading the race in social networking sites, with 13 million followers on Twitter and 25.5 million likes on Facebook. His opponents are far behind: Mitt Romney has about 376,000 followers and 1.5 million likes, Newt Gingrich has more than 1.4 million followers and 295,979 likes, Rick Santorum has close to 165,000 followers 177,829 likes, and Ron Paul has about 27,500 followers and 908,056 likes.

Aside from his current popularity, President Obama is aiming to expand his reach with his Tom Hanks-narrated, Hollywood-style documentary, called “The Road We’ve Traveled.” The video is set to go online on Thursday night.

If you want to reach out to people, let them hear what you have to say or vice versa, since everyone is using at least one form of social networking site, social media is the best platform to do so. But social media may not always bring out the positive result candidates want.

The Drawback of Social Media

Everyone has a different opinion on things, from food preferences to religion, political affinity, etc. And when we voice out our opinions on this stuff, you can bet that someone out there will disagree. Nothing’s wrong with a little friendly debate but what if it costs you your friends?

According to a study released by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, a number of Americans have unfriended, blocked or hidden someone in their social networking site because of difference in political opinions. The study also stated that Liberals were most likely to unfriend you if they disagree with your political opinions just to avoid arguments, or they just don’t want to be irritated with your constant rantings.

“Among the SNS users whose friends post political content, 25% always agree or mostly agree with their friends’ political postings; 73% of these SNS users “only sometimes” agree or never agree with their friends’ political postings,” said the report. “When they disagree with others’ posts, 66% of these SNS users say they usually ignore the posts; 28% said they usually respond with comments or posts of their own; and 5% said it depends on the circumstances.”

“Social networking sites have become places where political conversation, debate, and proselytizing occur, especially during campaign seasons … Some analysts have expressed concerns about the impact of social networking sites on the broad political culture. They have worried that … users might customize their friendship networks by hanging out only with people who share and reinforce their political views,” the Pew report indicated.

Presidential Candidates Are Doing the Obama is a post from: SiliconANGLE
We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

New Media Minute: How to Build a Loyal Video Series Audience

Daisy Whitney — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:01:34 +0000

Since only one in twelve branded videos pass the one-million
view mark, brands and producers are better off building an audience
than going for a viral hit. There are several best practices that any
Web producer, marketer or brand can follow when making a video series.
Jay Miletsky, CEO of online network MyPod Studios, shared several with
the New Media Minute.

[Thanks, Daisy!]

New Media Minute: How to Build a Loyal Video Series Audience is a post from: SiliconANGLE
We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

A Cloud Niche for Every Trade: Leveling the Playing Field for SMBs

Kristen Nicole — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:55:50 +0000

If you’re the owner of a small business, one of your biggest hurdles is competing with larger, established companies. So what’s an SMB to do? Many SMBs are actually doing what the big guys are doing, at least when it comes to the cloud. SaaS, PaaS and other cloud services are leveling the playing field for SMBs, and also opening the door for niche services to emerge around various industries.

The Cloud Phenonmenon

Parallels, a hosting and cloud services enablement provider, released the latest findings from Parallels SMB Cloud Insights, its study profiling the cloud buying behavior of SMBs, the fastest-growing segment for cloud services.

According to the survey, SMB cloud adoption is now a global phenomenon. The worldwide SMB cloud market is expected to expand at a 26% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) to $68 billion by 2014.

The cloud niche

One real opportunity in cloud services for SMBs is going niche. And one service that’s gotten a recent boost is the legal domain, empowering small firms with specific cloud services from Clio.

Recently awarded a $6 million funding round, Clio’s web-based app lets lawyers manage their practice from the cloud. Like healthcare and finance, the legal industry has its own set of requirements to operate within a cloud environment. Security and lawyer-client privileges are just some of the concerns Clio had to address, but the result is a specialized spin on a cloud trend that’s designed for a highly regulated industry.

“Cloud is transforming nearly every industry,” says Jack Newton, CEO and co-founder of Clio. ”It’s especially surprising to some that the legal industry, typically slow, is embracing the cloud so whole-heartedly. The value proposition for Clio is they can manage their entire practice online, keeping on top of their calendar, to-do lists, related documents and time and billing.

“The other unique component, and big advantage versus desktop-based systems, is that we have a fully integrated client portal that allows our lawyers to interact securely with their clients. It’s secure online collaboration and it’s cost effective in lieu of phone calls, faxes or emails, which have high overhead and lower security.”

The incorporation of multiple management features is becoming standard operating procedure for many collaborative cloud services geared towards SMBs. Companies like Producteev and Syncplicity are centralizing a myriad of services into a single hub, and Clio takes the next step towards contextualizing these services for their specific client needs. And in Clio’s eyes, that’s a major perk for SMBs.

“Clio can provide a competitive advantage by embracing collaborative technologies,” Newton explains, giving the example of Clio Connect, their platform for securely tracking and sharing documents, adhering to their industry regulations and keeping a document from being sent over an insecure email connection. ”It adds a social angle to the typical lawyer-client interaction. What we’ve heard is that it’s a huge competitive advantage over firms that aren’t using this technology.”

Billowing cloud efforts

And Clio isn’t the only company with a niche angle on cloud services. The UK government launched CloudStore, their G-Cloud application procurement site, which gives small businesses the opportunity to compete with large IT companies for public-sector contracts.

The recently opened CloudStore offers services from 257 companies to public-sector organizations in a browsable, GCHQ-vetted catalogue of cloud services, ranging from rentable infrastructure, applications and platforms to consultancy.

“It’s a complete break with the past,” David McLeman, the managing director of UK cloud and security vendor Ancoris, said in an interview with ZDNet UK. ”Historically you had a cartel of large suppliers running massive government IT projects, and that dominated government IT. I think the new initiative will help the public sector.”

Sage North America also recently released Sage Source, a forward-thinking, connected service offering resources to SMBs while encouraging some semblance of a work-life balance.

Sage Source is a personalized, web-based workspace through which companies can offer their employees secure access to an ever-growing library of services (“gadgets”), from personal payroll history to company announcements and shopping discounts. The a-la-mode approach is all about centralizing the tools that you need to offset certain tasks to a complimentary cloud service.

Contributors: Mellisa Tolentino

A Cloud Niche for Every Trade: Leveling the Playing Field for SMBs is a post from: SiliconANGLE
We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.

In the same vein:

Cord-Cutting: Truth or Lie?

Daisy Whitney — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:37:19 +0000

More consumers are relying on broadband-only connections in their homes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re cutting the cord. Nielsen’s latest report reveals that there are now 5.1 million broadcast only/broadband homes in the United States, up 23% from last year. But the growth may be coming from homes that never had broadband in the first place rather than homes cutting back. For more details, check out this week’s New Media Minute.

[Thanks, Daisy.]

Cord-Cutting: Truth or Lie? is a post from: SiliconANGLE
We're now available on the Kindle! Subscribe today.