Open Web Award blog partners response to our win over YouTube ranges from

• the quizzical
  

  Of interest YouTube came second for video, how weird is that?

• to the thoughtful
  

  FFWD- People’s Choice for Video Sharing. Why I like it: Quick and easy video management and syndication.

• to outright enthusiasm
  

  FFWD is the best video sharing network which gathers the best videos on the web, it’s cool that youtube didn’t get the 1st place.

I think the controversy arises because it's difficult to imagine why the lifestream world needs better video sharing without seeing it. So I've compiled these screen shoots to illustrate the difference. I've used friendfeed because it is complimented for handling media (like videos) better than other lifestreams (uh yes, unpublicized feature ffwd can be integrated with freindfeed and soon Facebook), so the gap I'm about to show ffwd fills is even bigger with relation to a more barebones service like Twitter.

The actual lifestream entry...

without ffwd

with ffwd

ffwd advantages are: bigger thumbnail, title not prefaced by unnecessary source site information

These are cosmetic issues and I believe when you use friendfeed's bookmarklet the resulting post looks more like the ffwd post. However, there is something to mention about the bookmarklets that is illustrative of why you might need both: friendfeed's is for sharing anything to friendfeed, ffwd's is for sharing videos to anywhere. I use the ffwd bookmarklet to share a video simultaneously to friends-on-email and Twitter and Friendfeed and Facebook (not available outside of the labs yet). Whereas the Friendfeed bookmarklet is more about who you are sharing to namely your Friendfeed subscribers and the conversation with them, The ffwd bookmarklet about the videos I'm sharing and others watching them.

This focus on watching the videos recommended by a person is reflected in the UI. When you link through Twitter to a video on YouTube, you reach a page like this:

Whereas the page you would reach if you used ffwd is:

ffwd Advantages are: a landing page all about you - your thoughts, favorites, personality, etc, where you as curator is recognized as the "source" of the recommendation rather than the site that simply hosts the video.

Even the ffwd button has been infused with the essence of you. It will guide the visitors exploration through previous videos you have shared, and videos from channels you subscribe to. It's like you had your own web TV station.

The last benefit is primarily for your followers. Instead of a nondescript TinyURL, the ffwd share bookmarklet posts a URL that explicitly indicates that the content is a video. It's a simple thing, but a key UI optimization when you are dealing with only 160 characters.

In summary, the ffwd bookmarklet optimizes sharing video on Twitter, Friendfeed, Facebook or any lifestream (just let us know which ones) by making it easy for followers to recognize your video recommendations and watch them. Please read more, install the bookmarklet and Twitter connect (you'll need an ffwd account) or see it in action.

For you Twitter vanguards, we just launched three features that are a simple way to act on four of Guy Kawasakiʼs tips for be coming Mr. Goodtweet:

• Tip 5: “Always be linking”,
• Tip 6: “Establish yourself as a subject expert”,
• Tip 7: “Incorporate pictures and other media”,
• Tip 8: “Use the right tools”.

If you are logged into your ffwd account the titles below will link to where you can get the three components

Twitter Connect
Guyʼs Tips: Always be linking, Other media
Populate your Twitter stream with useful video information ffwd channels (a compilation of the best videos on a topic crowdsourced from all over the web) you are watching. ffwd share Bookmarklet
Guyʼs Tips: Use the right tools, Always be linking Standardize and simplify the sharing of videos from nearly anywhere on the web. Instead of finding and learning the sharing function for every site you find a video on,
just click on “ffwd share” for a consistent UI to share a video with your friends or save it as a favorite. Your
shares will be add to the ffwd index, a collective wisdom on the best videos out there and now with ffwdʼs Twitter Connect post to your Twitter feed.

Personal Video Lifestream
Guyʼs Tips: Establish yourself as a subject expert, Other media
Launch a virtual television channel that you control. Videos from all over the web that youʼve shared, saved, and tweeted, as well as any channels youʼve subscribed to are collected in one place which your followers can subscribe to. The UI of the page transforms a list of videos into a channel surfing joy: no scrolling and clicking necessary. Your followers just need to watch your discoveries and click the ffwd button to bring up the next video when theyʼd like to move on.

ffwd share Bookmarklet
Guy’s Tips: Use the right tools, Always be linking
Standardize and simplify the sharing of videos from nearly anywhere on the web. Instead of finding and learning the sharing function for every site you find a video on, just click on “ffwd share” for a consistent UI to share a video with your friends or save it as a favorite. Your shares will be add to the ffwd index, a collective wisdom on the best videos out there and now with ffwd’s Twitter Connect post to your Twitter feed.

It’s remarkable how a few simple pieces of technology when combined can create an enormous value proposition. If “you are what you eat” gave way to “you are what you watch”, then maybe now it’s giving way to “you are what you tweet”. We see this growing into Twitter Television: the ability to watch video tweets in real time like a television channel. We look forward to your feedback, but more importantly we look forward to see what you tweet to your channel, so we can discover it too.

For starters, I just signed a lease on what I've been told was an early Digg office 531 Howard Street, which happens to be across the way from our current office (anyone who needs 1300 loft style space, let me know. i might be able to hook you up). It's a pleasantly, airy space so keep an eye out for the the office warming party next month.

Our reason for moving is also a similarity we have with Digg, we're hiring. We haven't accumulated the war-chest they have, just manged our Series A well enough that the broader economic downturn doesn't effect our focus on continuing to innovate our nascent product category. I heard Digg grew from something like 4 to 40 people while in this office; we'd like to double to 16.

Both our teams are trying reconstructing media spaces that were deconstructed by the advance of digital creation and distribution. Whereas one brand would formerly manage creation and distribution and therefore provided the de-facto service of organizing attention for content, competition among an exploding number of creators and the accessibility of distribution over the Internet requires organization to be provided as a separate service, which Digg provides for news and ffwd is starting to provide for short-form video. Digg is the new front page and ffwd is the only channel your ever need.

That's not to say that ffwd is simply a Digg for video (that's what Digg Video is), easily illustrated by a comparison of pages:

We differ on the level of personalization (ffwd is mass customized, Digg is only for the aggregate audience), presentation of the content (ffwd plays videos in sequence, Digg uses the list view of their news product), and how the content is sourced (ffwd crawls for videos to meet the expectations of our channels' audiences, Digg's audience submits and votes on videos for the entire audience). It's the difference between a personalized adaptive channel and "looking at information through the lens of the collective community on Digg".

That said, I look forward to when our experiement has as much success as Digg has had. More to the point, if we can do for TV what they've done for news, not only would we be fulfilling our mission, we'd also be fulfilling the expectations of our new address.

(First a big thanks to Josh Lowensohn for letting this lowly Mac-not-running-parallels slob check it out on his machine)

Clearly this is the most web-app friendly browser, ever. Whereas Firefox 3 enabled some great new technology (like Feedly), Google's Chrome gives due to all the existing web-app technology by recasting the essential metaphors of the browser from the perspective of web-apps rather than web-sites, for instance stand alone windows and shortcuts for applications. ffwd was designed to be such an app and I'm glad to say it runs great on Google Chrome. How could it not with exceptional support for Javascript and WebKit rendering? However I'm disappointed with one major decision: putting the tabs at the top. Granted the web-application world can feel good about giving the application names top billing in the window, but there would have been far more benefit in moving them to the bottom. If they had been moved to the bottom, then the browser-as-desktop look would have been complete. OS X, Windows, and most flavors of Linux dock active applications at the bottom of the screen. Immaterial of whether that's the best UI (which I happen to think it is), copying it would have reduced resistance tremendously to the adoption of web-apps by desktop users.

Google either did not think about it enough or is cynically trying to make the Omnibar look like it's part of every application. A giant search box just isn't the best first line of navigation for every web app. Don't believe me? Take a look at this screenshot of Yelp with the smallest possible Firefox header.

While Yelp has opted to highlight search lower in the UI. In Chrome (I can only imagine since again I'm a lowly Mac user), there would be an extremely confusing additional search bar given priority above the menus. Furthermore the fact that this Chrome-like minimalism is possible but so uncommonly used in Firefox that it has become a selling point for Chrome is further proof that a more desktop-like default layout is a huge missed opportunity.

Either way I hope Google changes it ASAP, otherwise a huge opportunity for the emerging web application space (that's not internal to Google, anyway) will be lost. Web apps will thrive more if they look as much like desktop apps as possible. So, please Google move everything you can to the bottom of the window, so the  javascript menus you went to great pains to process better will have a shot at thwarting the hegemony of "File Edit etc.".

I've been mulling for a while over Mark Cuban's post suggesting that cable companies "save" Internet video. As usual, I applaud his grasp of the cold hard facts of the present. However, in this case, I was confused by the lack of historical context.

It took me a while, but I now think the missing history is a result of a particular bias and wonder how widespread it is in both non-Internet and Internet TV circles. Let's coin the term, "pipe bias" - the anachronistic thought dating to when pipes were costly, physical things, buried under the ground, that fixing/improving a existing pipe is more marketable than laying a new one. This bias is illustrated by one of Mark's primary propositions on why cable will preserve market position over the Internet: it's already in people's homes.

There are two fallacies implied by this argument: first that market position for pipes is mutually exclusive (i.e. getting Internet video necessitates giving up cable). Secondly, that market position for a pipe depends on matching the strengths of the incumbent. This is counter factual, ironically, to the history of the very pipe Mark contends will maintain hegemony. Cable got its start servicing people under served by the incumbent pipe (over-the-air), wooed a larger audience not with promises of picture quality, but signal consistency, and captured its currently large audience with more and better content choices. Even today, over-the-air has the advantage with regard to delivering HD (i.e. picture quality), but cable has the wins on all other current fronts. The lesson is: new models can win by simply doing something desirable that the old model couldn't even if they are a poor substitute for the old model

Let's put aside that two of coax's strong suits are coming under attack (see Sezmi and Verizon FiOS) and focus on the central competitive issue: an Internet based TV model has capacities that are foreign to cable.

1) The pipe is a multi-tasker - text, audio, pictures, video, holograms, and virtual reality. The TV experience is expanded into true multimedia

2) It is free on the margin. Once I've paid my general purpose Internet bill, access to most content doesn't cost any additional money (time spent watching ads, perhaps).

3) The catalog of content is limitless, whereas the broadcast model can only make available a certain number of programs per day.

4) It is fully configurable to a lifestyle, obviating the need for costly stopgap technology like time and place shifting (DVRs, Slingboxes).

5) The experience can be fully customized and adaptive, whereas cable by nature must tend towards mass media.

The market for Internet video will grow as creative people take advantage of these capacities to launch entertainment experiences that would "never work on cable", just like they took advantage of cable's bandwidth capacity to air programming that over-the-air couldn't carry. Furthermore, it's worth noting that cable's potential to match these capacities isn't enough. Creatives are an impatient sort and won't wait for cable to catch up to the Internet any more than they would have waited for over-the-air to catch up to cable (notable that the digital over-the-air transition will finally make possible a channel lineup larger than original cable lineups).

All that remains is to enable that creativity. Viewers need to be convinced to subscribe, advertisers need to be courted, infrastructure needs to be built, creative investment recouped. That is to say, business must be done. What made cable happen was the persistence of the door-to-door subscription salesperson, the person who negotiated to carry local stations over coax, the visionaries who brought us HBO, MTV, and the Food Network. Perhaps Mark is looking to those who worked their magic before from where he is sitting he believes the Internet has failed to cultivate their own magicians. From my perspective, on the court as it were, it's different. I look at Break and I see MTV. I look at Move Networks and I see high grade coax. I look at ffwd's personal channels and I see viral subscriptions.

On the other hand, the way Mark sees it should be a warning to anyone who thinks Internet video is just simply going to happen. Uh-uh. Hustlers made cable happen despite that over-the-air was good enough. So let's start hustling for Internet video, shall we? Or we may end up crying out for a savior ourselves.

I wonder if Stewart Brand and Tim O'Reilly have ever met. They might have cleared this mess up before the rest of us had to stumble through it. To wit:

Tim O'Reilly has said, the

"least-understood principle from my original Web 2.0 manifesto" is "Data is the Intel Inside".

Stewart's quote in full is much more measured

On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.

First let's consider the merits of each.

Tim conveys an historical counter-factual, that if you remove data from recently developed technology, it stops working. Without the index (and now the search log), Google is just a form-post text box. MapQuest is a few panning/zooming functions without NavTeq's atlas. Facebook may be nothing without the social graph.

Stewart conveys an  economic counter-factual, that information resembles currency which if used at the wrong place and time is worthless. Ducats can't be used to pay a bill denominated in Dollars. A promissory note for a thousand dollars 10 years from now can't pay my rent this month.

However, as factual statements they are both sorely incomplete and highlight rather than compensate for their individual deficiencies. To retain Tim's analogy while incorporating Stewart's logic you would need to accept the absurd corollary "Silicon wants to be free". It's more likely either or both of them are wrong (or so pithy as to be meaningless). Despite, there's quite a bit of unnecessary tension and confusion caused by technologists trying to resolve this conundrum.

As it turns out, a defensible (and more importantly, actionable) formulation can be extracted from the implicit caveats: Stewart's use of the word "right" and Tim's use of a the Intel brand rather than the generic word "microchip".

Transferring Stewart's caveat to Tim's statement is relatively simple, "The right information is the Intel inside".

Transferring Tim's caveat to Stewart's statement is trickier, but here's a shot, "On the one hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. On the other hand we can brand the delivery of the right information, in the right place, at the right time and brands want to be expensive, because they are so valuable. So you have these two fighting against each other."

Tim's fallacy is that any-old data could be the Intel inside. Stewart's mistake is attributing value to the "information" part of "right information" that is really due to the "rightness" part.

I'll leave it to the reader to articulate this synthesis in their own words for their own memory. Instead I'll end with an amusing illustration of the improved understanding it allows. Namely, we can now replace the previously silly corollary "silicon wants to be free" with the almost profound narrative "silicon wants to be branded". Neat, huh?

Our predecessors in the video content industry's transition to digital were recently quoted regarding barriers they are facing to monetization. I was happy to find they map directly to three areas ffwd is innovating. First the quotes:

• "the killer video app will be an intelligent piece of software that creates a mode-sensitive, personalized [program guides]” - Veoh CEO Steve Mitgang
• "The one thing [YouTube] is least good at is the social piece, where users create their own community around a shared interest," imeem CMO Steve Jang
• “consumers...shouldn't have to think about whether it's IPTV, or online video, or cable or whatever. The experience needs to be the same” - Ben Huang, Product Management Director, Microsoft TV

And now our innovation areas and what we've rolled out so far

• connecting the videos - the adaptive sequencing engine
• connecting the audience - passive sharing
• connecting the venues - the Facebook and Wii applications

It's good to know that when we launch, we'll unlock value for the whole ecosystem.

Mirena
Buy hydrocodone online
Drug interaction sibutramine and phentermine
Tolazamide
Buy Effexor
Low dose of viagra
Soma getting
Phentermine addiction
Amlodipine
Ambien sleep aid
Prescription tramadol
Phentermine diet drug
Lidocaine
Melphalan
Cause rebound weight gain phentermine
Cod online tramadol
Can i buy phentermine anywhere in uk
Online viagra prescriptions
Adderall skin allegra skin xanax skin
Oxycontin xanax bars perclesept and lortab wha
Meridia sibutramine
Colchicine
Phentermine blue 30 mg
Snorting phentermine
Tramadol used for
Hydrocodone side effects vicodin
Purchase cialis online
Viagra alternate
Cialis forums
Phentermine 37.5 mg
Meropenem
Levofloxacin
Non perscription generic cialis
Dexchlorpheniramine
Phentermine and ocular hypertension
Nitroprusside
Clopidogrel
Cheap online order viagra
Acetaminophen
Buy viagra line
Viagra cialis generic
Cialis levitra viagra compare
Female viagra cream
Oxycodone
Buy prescription tramadol without
Potassium
Cheapest online viagra
Tramadol hcl 50 mg tab
Oxycontin
90 cod count day phentermine
Buy herbal viagra
Heart phentermine
Dipyridamole
Buy Didrex
Best phentermine pharmacies compare links
25mg viagra
Cialis samples
Soma muscle
Viagra free consultation
Fenoldopam
Tetanus
Herbal viagra alternatives
Dicloxacillin
Terbutaline
Herbal phentermine does it work
Bricanyl
Nafcillin
Phentermine interactions
Viagra cialis levivia comparison
Butaperazine
Phentermine no doctor
Lethal dose of xanax
Buy online viagra viagra
Diazepam
Diethylpropion
Risperdal
Buy phentermine tablet
Cialis for sale
Discount viagra online
Phentermine reviews
Online consultations and prescriptions phentermine
Amoxil
Where to buy phentermine
Ketoconazole
Buy and purchase viagra online
Cialis and levitra
Viagra cialis levitra comparison
Alternative herbal viagra
Side effects of viagra
Online pharmacy xanax
Phenelzine
Climara
Omeprazole
Buy Propecia
Mannitol
Phentermine dangerous
Pindolol
Minipress
Phentermine vs adipex p
Generic xanax
Free phentermine sample
Cod phentermine
Diphenoxylate
Diamox
Low cost phentermine
Cholestyramine
Overnight phentermine no prescription
Cheap phentermine free consult
Online phentermine prescriptions
Alfentanil
Protriptyline
Xanax without prescription
Discount pharmacy phentermine purchase
Cheap viagra generic
Etanercept
Propoxyphene
Epirubicin
Information phentermine
Canada cialis
Brompheniramine
Chemical name for viagra
Imiquimod
Atracurium
Lithium
Phentermine pillstore
Glycerin
Clonazepam
Liotrix
Budesonide
Discount hydrocodone
Tramadol no prescription
Order phentermine online uk
Compare pharmacies for phentermine
Xanax tablets
Free shipping cheap phentermine
Prozac interact xanax
Written prescription for viagra
Advair
Carbimazole
Free prescription sample viagra
Cialis drug prescription
What does generic xanax look like
Hydrocodone prescription
Phentermine lose weight loss diet pills
Viagra lawsuits
Viagra dosage
Casanthranol
Viagra retail discount
Sulindac
Phentermine success story

Ray Ozzie rocks, no doubt about it, but he's evidently not immune from the particularly virulent strain of "blind to the world" endemic to Redmond. Take this bit quoted at Techcrunch: "Just imagine the possibilities enabled by centralized configuration and personalization and remote control of all your devices from just about anywhere. Just imagine the convenience of unified data management..."

Just imagine? Those of us building cross platform web-aps live in that world right now! Our imaginations have long given way to implementation. Right now, you can program your TV via the web using the ffwd service and our first two client application prototypes (the PC client and the Wii client). Soon we'll be adding a mobile client (preview your program choices in transit) and a social client (watch what your friends have or will watch). By the end of this year we plan to have a full featured API that will let developers create clients for ANY standards-based, Internet-enabled device.

He then goes on to talk about "...the transparent synchronization of files, folders, documents, and media. The bi-directional synchronization of arbitrary feeds of all kinds across your devices and the Web, a kind of universal file synch.

Synch? What's there to sync when every device is using the same data repository? The the web-at-large multi-directionally handles its native "documents" (HTML), "folders" (XML feeds), "media" (Embeds) using the "file" system of URLs. Perhaps Microsoft (and now Ray's) problem is that none of those web natives are created using Microsoft software. The simple solution is to include with Vista the equivalent of a dot-Mac account (which I would support if only because it may push Apple to do the same).

So what is so important that I make fun of Microsoft for being blind to it? In the world at large, the PC (personal computer) is dying on two fronts:

1. The primary copy of our new data is more likely to live on a public server that on a personal device (eg. Flickr, YouTube, there isn't won't be even a copy of Facebook data on a PC)
2. The computer is giving way to the Internet-enabled device. The biggest threat to Microsoft's play for the living room isn't Apple, it's the TV manufacturers who are rigging their displays with just enough to get online (btw, this article deserves it's own future post because it best describes the vision of the future ffwd enables).

I think he understood this even a little bit into his experience at Microsoft, but these new statements suggest either he since stopped paying attention, succumb to pressure to quit the Creative Commons nonsense and get on with productizing his ideas, or (and this is the most disturbing) he is building his vision with the PC (or worse, a specific OS) in mind.

Please Mr. Ozzie, for you and us, make this MESH thing conform to the values implied by this as yet unrefined and unofficial war cry of web application developers everywhere.

"give me a standards compliant browser running on good hardware and a light-weight OS and I'll do the rest."

Update April 2008: Microsoft is releasing Live Mesh to a small group,  estimating general beta before 2009

The common wisdom on ubiquity is that consumers want everything, everywhere...a raw ubiquity of power. While this is probably born out of championing consumer choice, the usefulness rapidly diminishes once the everything part passes a certain scale or the everywhere part succumbs to bloat. For instance, in a world where 600 minutes of video is uploaded to You Tube every 60 seconds, I don't actually want everything (emerging term: choice fatigue). Similarly, the Playstation 3 is part of so many everywheres that it ends up nowhere. Nextflix by contrast thrives by offering a sensible ways to limit choices and relax the pressure of real-time decision making (just add it to the queue and forget about it until it arrives at your door). The Wii doesn't play Blu-ray DVDs or store video or do calculus, which makes it easier to turn it on when I want to play a game.

On the other hand, I do wish I could add to my Netflix queue from my mobile phone (perhaps via text message) and that I could buy Wii store games from my laptop. Similarly, ffwd's vision is that applications on different platforms should communicate information to each other but should focus on functions that conform to the highest and best use(s). This sort of integration implies a limited feature set in a given platform, but increased usefulness across all relevant devices. Additionally, we lack presumption about what the highest and best use for a given user is on a platform, but rather than pack all functions in to "cover bases", we suggest making client applications configurable. This is a ubiquity of presence, the optimal experience is threaded through all the platforms that do their part in completing a task.

Yesterday at the Television of Tomorrow show, I demoed for the first time how ffwd enables asynchronous "two screen" applications. It's unremarkable in a way: use your laptop to find web clips that you think you will like and queue them for your TV, then switch to a box that connects the TV to the Internet (our choice is the Wii) where with one click you can start a streaming sequence of those selections and one-button skip through the ones that turn out to have been bad choices. What is significant about our implemented is actually (and I realized this only as I was demoing it) what you can't do on the TV client: you can't search, you can't browse user profiles, you can't share videos. In theory the user could configure the client to do those things, but we chose not to because those functions are more easily performed on the laptop. This is both an uncommon technology and an uncommon way of thinking about technology.

There are many examples of how pragmatically difficult it is to simultaneously hold both these ubiquities. Microsoft may have an identity crisis because of it. Advertising creative types are coming to grips with it. The kids, well, they prefer the ubiquity of presence, and that's really the prospect that matters. Interestingly, there is one group that's been managing this transition for a while, and they are doing quite well at it: interactive TV programmers. The example of the moment is Lisa Hsia who keeps extending the presence of Project Runway and won an award today for the effort. After my presentation, I had the pleasure of meeting people who have 10 years of experience with interactive video applications and who learned the hard way that (among other things) a two screen (laptop/TV) application can be better than trying to stuff interactivity into the set-top box or TV on the laptop. It's not uncommon for pioneers in a new medium to presume that the old medium failed because of the people, rather than the intrinsic limits of the medium, and they then proceed to fumble through the same early confusions. Looking to avoid this mistake, I'll bring this lessons of interactive TV to bear on our API launch later this year.

Mark Cuban asks the rhetorical question, "Will you watch what I watch?" to probe a question that is central to ffwd's vision: how will viewers decide what to watch in a world of limitless choices? He dispenses with search as not providing real access to limitless choice (functionally limiting choice to the first page of results). I would add that search engines only enter the flow after most of the decision process is over. You must already know well enough what you want to watch to formulate a search string. He further questions if the currently ascending model of the celebrity endorsement, illustrated by Oprah, is destined to be the king.

At ffwd, we have a systemic understanding of the landscape that may help Mark's inquiry. There are two axes to consider. First the archetypal cultural role at work here is the curator, the custodian of a collection - the Who part (like a museum curator). Secondly, the fundamental cultural operation in question is the transmission of information, or how the curator documents the collection - the How part (museum curators publish The Catalog for this purpose). The product of the curator and the transmission in video traditionally (pre-computers) has been called programming. I really want to emphasize that the essential problem post-computers is still the same (say it again, programming). What has changed is the number and configurations possible for the cultural components, the curator and the transmission method, has expanded

Some examples of how this this categorization plays out:

• Who: Corporation, How: media empire, Example: HDNet
• Who: Individual Celebrity, How: media empire, Example: Oprah
• Who: Common Collective, How: Democratic media, Example: VideoSift, MeFeedia, VodPod, YouTube Homepage
• Who: Celebrity Collective, How: Democratic media, Example: Funny Or Die?
• Who: Artificial Intelligence, How: Recommendation Service, Example: Matchmine, Taboola
• Who: Artificial Intelligence, How: Internet Publishing: YouTube recommended videos
• Who Corporation, How: Internet publishing, Example: Next New Networks

Like the periodic table, a structure like this makes it easier to see the relationship between known quantities (like the two examples in Mark's post, HDNet and Oprah) conceptualize another options by mixing and matching the variations of each sub component. For instance:

• Who: Individual Celebrity, How: Internet Publishing, Example: ??? Could this be where Mark Cuban himself fits in? or Robert Scoble?
• Who: Corporation, How: Democratic Media, Example ???
• Who: Artificial Intelligence, How: Media empire, Example: ???

Well, we are busy enough allowing for the integration of any programming method and finding ways to measure their relevance to a viewer. We'll leave the speculation over and creation of these possibilities to others. Hope this helps, Mark!