2015年10月23日 星期五

Digital News Initiative

今年 5 月 Google 與歐洲八家媒體,包括英國衛報、法國迴聲報等,結盟推出「數位新聞計畫(Digital News Initiative,下稱 DNI )」,進行線上新聞創新,聚焦產品開發,支援創新與培訓及研究。本月 Google 發佈加速行動網頁讀取速度的工具「AMP」,即是誕生自這個計畫。
根據《The Next Web》,現在 DNI 準備大幅加碼 1.5 億歐元資助新創公司、個人或大型媒體組織,前提是你要提出大膽創新(bold)的專案,以促進數位新聞發展。內容可以是建立嶄新的商業模式、改變新聞消費方式,或者打造前所未有的原型。
獲得資金的組織或個人,沒有任何附加條件,Google 並不會對專案下指導棋、不要求使用 Google 產品,研發完成的模式或產品也不需要與其它媒體共享。只要有明確目標,專案可以有「很高的實驗性」。Google 設下的唯一條件就是專案必須根植於歐洲。
以下粗分專案的三種類型:
  • 第一:未曾有人設計或測試過的創意原型,DNI 將資助最多 5 萬歐元。
  • 第二:給予「中型」專案最多 30 萬歐元的支援,但不得超過專案總成本的 70%。
  • 第三:「大型」專案的投資額最多,每筆專案至多可以獲得 100 萬歐元,但同樣不得超過專案總成本的 70%。但若涉及跨國或跨產業合作,則不在此限。
但是像是傳統媒體老舊出版系統的升級、有內容但缺乏創新元素、或者只是校對數據的項目,會被排除在外。
決定原型與中型專案是否通過的「評審團」由具有創新意識與影響力的 Google 員工組成,而針對大型專案,則找來如 Jawbone 創辦人 Alexander Asseily、《SPIEGEL Online》CEO Katharina Borchert 等跨產業人士擔綱評審。
Google 與歐洲媒體的關係有時非常緊張,比如說去年德國出版商 Axel Springer 曾因不滿版權問題把新聞從 Google News 撤出,但流量驟跌,不得不妥協。西班牙政府也曾強制要求 Google 需為新聞摘要付費,於是 Google 乾脆把 Google News 整個關掉,西班牙政府才匆忙撤回這個要求,但目前 Google News 還沒在西班牙恢復運作。
在數位時代中,新聞媒體是被扭轉得最為劇烈的產業類型。傳統媒體難以忘情過往的商業模式,遲遲難以找到明確定位,命脈被搜尋系統與社群網站掌握,形勢更加險峻。最近科技公司以貌似友善的姿態為媒體在網路中找生機,Facebook 以 Instant Articles 作為選項之一,不過禍福難料,Google 則明白表示他們希望「改善整個生態系統」,因為媒體似乎在這個進程中感到「困惑」。無論如何,媒體、出版商屈居弱勢已是事實,就算不買 Facebook 或 Google 的帳,還是只能更積極的奮發圖強,學習科技公司的創新精神了。

最神秘的「混合現實」Magic Leap公司



最神秘的「混合現實」公司 Magic Leap,將讓 Oculus 和 HoloLens 變成小兒科

作者  | 發布日期 2015 年 10 月 23 日 分類 VR/AR , 穿戴式裝置
pingwest 配圖
距離「混合現實」科技公司 Magic Leap 接受 Google 高達 5.5 億美元 B 輪投資已經過去了一年。現在這家公司可能很快就要正式推出產品。


近日在 WSJD Live 大會上接受採訪時,Magic Leap CEO 羅尼·阿伯維茲(Rony Abovitz)透露,公司正在生產數以百萬計的產品,出貨的準確時間暫時不能公布,但已不遠了。
Magic Leap 將虛擬實境和擴增實境技術結合起來,希望能夠創造出全新的「混合現實」體驗。想像一下:電腦、平板電腦和手機軟體的使用介面,懸浮在你周圍的空中,是怎樣的體驗?
像這樣:
pingwest 配圖
或者,你也可以在四下無人的情況下,把辦公室變成遊戲戰場:
pingwest 配圖
Seriously……你去看看 Magic Leap 官網就知道了……
這種所謂「混合現實」的實現方式,並不像常規的擴增實境和虛擬實境一樣依賴於笨重的頭戴裝置(比如 Oculus Rift、HoloLens)。Magic Leap 的做法是透過更小型的裝置(阿伯維茲的原話是「小型電腦」)用作計算核心,用目前人們還無法想像的視網膜投影技術來進行顯示。
瞭解情況的人士透露,這種視網膜投影技術需要晶片技術和人體的深度結合,目前只有高通、Google 等投資方的最高領導人嘗試過。
而這種「混合現實」技術可以用在影視、電子遊戲、辦公等多種場合,前途不可限量……
pingwest 配圖
pingwest 配圖
pingwest 配圖
該公司總部位於美國佛羅里達州,目前正在南加州摩托羅拉曾經使用過的工廠中進行生產開發。該公司在此之前一直處於隱性狀態,除了發布了幾則產品展示影片,和接受了 Google、高通、傳奇影業等公司巨額投資之外,並無太多新聞,據華爾街日報報導公司估值大約在 20 億美元。
目前,該公司已經和《阿凡達》、《魔戒》系列等電影的特效公司 Weta Workshop 進行長期合作。該公司今年夏天還曾透露,其 SDK 支持 Unity 3D 和虛幻引擎等主流的 3D 遊戲引擎。
說實話,如果 Magic Leap 這幾段展示的效果真的能實現的話,中國一大堆所謂的 VR / AR 技術和內容公司相比起來真的就跟幼稚園一樣了,就連 Oculus Rift 和 HoloLens 也都可以洗洗睡了……
(本文由 PingWest 授權轉載) 

2015年10月14日 星期三

Apple loses patent lawsuit to University of Wisconsin, faces hefty damages

Apple Inc could be facing up to $862 million in damages after a U.S. jury on Tuesday found the iPhone maker used technology owned by the University of Wisconsin-Madison's licensing arm without permission in chips found in many of its most popular devices.

2015年10月13日 星期二

Amazon 老闆 + 華盛頓郵報

當科技大亨 遇上新聞老靈魂
作者:黃哲斌  天下雜誌583期


談新共和與華盛頓郵報的危機與新生

http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5071537

2015年10月12日 星期一

Handmade at Amazon

亞馬遜計畫推出手工藝品交易平台傳聞許久,就在美國時間上週四(10/8),亞馬遜名為「Handmade at Amazon」正式上線1。目前平台已有來自 60 多個國家的創作者,提供了超過 8…
INSIDE.COM.TW

2015年10月10日 星期六

Car making should be left to established carmakers, not tech firms


"Car making should be left to established carmakers, not tech firms" 這是The Economist 的一貫主張 (這產業一百多年,累積太多的經營管理教訓和基本設施,何況他們有自己的軟體系統),不過科技大廠可能自以為公司錢、才多多,來個突破、破壞又如何呢?
----

Apple should steer clear of the car industry and stick to what it knows best. What we said earlier this year:

APPLE’S ability to make desirable iGadgets designed for easy portability…
ECON.ST

Apple Is Said to Deactivate Its News App in China


Photo
An Apple store in Hong Kong. China is now Apple’s second-largest source of revenue after the United States.CreditPhilippe Lopez/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
HONG KONG — Apple has disabled its news app in China, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation, the most recent sign of how difficult it can be for foreign companies to manage the strict rules governing media and online expression there.
The Apple News app, which the company announced in June, is available only to users in the United States, though it is being tested in Britain and Australia. Customers who already downloaded the app by registering their phones in the United States can still see content in it when they travel overseas — but they have found that it does not work in China.
Those in China who look at the top of the Apple News feed, which would normally display a list of selected articles based on a user’s preferred media, instead see an error message: “Can’t refresh right now. News isn’t supported in your current region.”
Apple, based in Cupertino, Calif., declined to comment.
Greater China is now Apple’s second-largest source of revenue after the United States, with sales of more than $13 billion in the third quarter. That means the company is most likely taking a careful approach to delivering new content, like that on its news app, within China.
Beijing generally insists that companies are responsible for censoring sensitive content inside China. In Apple’s case, that would mean it would probably have to develop a censorship system — most Chinese companies use a combination of automated software and employees — to eliminate sensitive articles from feeds.
For now, Apple seems to be avoiding the problem by completely disabling the service for users in China.
Still, even if the company is moving carefully to appease the government, the move is already troubling some users. Larry Salibra, an entrepreneur who founded Pay4Bugs, a software testing service, pointed out the issuelast week on Twitter. In a written interview, Mr. Salibra said he found what Apple was doing “very disconcerting.”
In a post on Reddit, Mr. Salibra went further, writing, “They’re censoring news content that I downloaded and stored on my device purchased in the USA, before I even enter China just because my phone happens to connect to a Chinese signal floating over the border.”
On device censorship is much different than having your server blocked by the Great Firewall or not enabling a feature for customers with certain country iTunes account,” his post continued. “That Apple has little choice doesn’t make it any less creepy or outrageous.”

2015年10月9日 星期五

The $98.6 Billion E-Mail


The $98.6 Billion E-Mail
Microsoft is fighting a case in federal appeals court that may decide the future of U.S. cloud computing.

Dina Bass

October 8, 2015 — 7:00 PM CST



Illustration: Bloomberg; Clouds: Getty Images

Don't Miss Out — Follow Bloomberg On
Not long ago, if the U.S. Department of Justice wanted information you’d stored electronically, all its agents needed to do was get a court order and seize your computer. Law enforcement doesn’t have it so easy anymore. In the cloud era, if the FBI or investigators from any other government want to get at your e-mail, Skype calls, or transaction records, the requests—or demands—have to go through corporate legal departments, wherever they may be. Archiving companies’ and individuals’ data is big business for the likes of Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon.com, which have invested billions to create immense clouds of servers to keep your information organized, secure, and confidential.

Overseas judgments could chill business. On Oct. 6, for example, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) invalidated a data-transfer agreement between the European Union and the U.S. Many big tech companies had taken extra steps to comply with the eventuality, but thousands of businesses were still left confused about the legality of moving information electronically from one continent to the other.

The complexity of that case, however, pales against the potential of other legal disputes. Microsoft and its fellow tech superpowers have installed their storage capacity around the world, further complicating the question of national jurisdiction. The record of a Skype call between a user in the U.S. and another in Germany, stored on a server in South Africa, might be the object of a request from the government of Singapore. Whose laws prevail? “These are the most far-fetched law school hypotheticals you could ever come up with,” says Nuala O’Connor, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington. “Except they are coming true.” Existing statutes don’t help. The U.S. law that usually applies to such situations was enacted in 1986, three years before the invention of the World Wide Web.


Since December 2013, Microsoft has been engaged in a pivotal battle with the U.S. government over e-mail stored on one of its company servers in Ireland. The government’s attorneys say the U.S. simply wants evidence linked to a narcotics case. Microsoft says if it loses the case, the consequences will resound well beyond the fate of an alleged drug dealer. “At the core of this case is the protection of personal communications and the reach of U.S. law,” says Craig Newman, head of privacy and data security at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler. He and others warn that a decision against Microsoft could affect civil liberties as well as the profits of the U.S. cloud-computing industry, forecast to reach $98.6 billion in revenue this year, according to market-research firm Gartner. “The implications of what we do here are obviously broad,” said U.S. Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch, one of the three justices presiding over the latest appeal, which opened in New York in early September.

The legal showdown is the first of its kind about corporate privacy since Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations about U.S. government spying. It hasn’t gone well for Microsoft: The company already lost two lower-court decisions when judges agreed with the government that the feds had the rights to data stored by a U.S. corporation. If the losing streak continues, cloud-computing companies such as Microsoft will have a harder time selling their services to foreign customers—particularly governments—because they won’t be able to promise to keep data from the prying eyes of U.S. intelligence. According to a June report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, the U.S. technology industry will lose more than $35 billion in sales by next year from customers who no longer trust it to keep their data private and safe.

“Some public-sector companies say, ‘I cannot put my data in the data center of an American company unless you win this case,’ ” says Brad Smith, president and chief legal officer of Microsoft. He says the company will appeal to the Supreme Court if it loses again. It’s not as if Microsoft refuses all cooperation with law enforcement, he notes. In January 2015, within 45 minutes of a request from the FBI on behalf of French investigators—the proper legal procedure, according to Smith—Microsoft turned over the U.S.-stored e-mail accounts of two suspects in the attack on the satirical magazineCharlie Hebdo. But the Ireland case is different, and its potential implications have Microsoft rivals Amazon, Apple, and Cisco providing public and courtroom support. The broader privacy repercussions have also brought organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union to Microsoft’s side.

The company’s wrapping itself in the Fourth Amendment—freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Smith, a 22-year Microsoft veteran, recalls that, in 2002, the National Security Agency asked Microsoft to participate in a secret, voluntary program giving the agency access to e-mails and other electronic communication. That program became public with the Snowden leaks, which included a 2009 NSA document noting that one company, identified as Company F, declined to participate. Smith says Company F was Microsoft and adds that after the NSA’s approach, he and then-Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer discussed John Adams and Abraham Lincoln and making a decision that stood “the test of time.” They then told the NSA no.


If Microsoft ultimately loses the case, says Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the U.S. would be able to compel companies to hand over data held overseas, regardless of local law. Moreover, “this principle, if you applied it consistently, would mean our laws would provide no protection against a request from, say, a German or Italian government” for information held by a non-U.S. provider on American soil, even if that data was generated by U.S. citizens or companies.

To the three-judge appeals panel in New York, Microsoft pressed its own version of the national and corporate security argument. A ruling in the government’s favor, said the company’s lawyer, Joshua Rosenkranz, would result in a “global free-for-all,” with other countries demanding that local companies turn over information stored in the U.S. “We would go crazy if China did it to us,” he said at the hearing. “This is a matter of national sovereignty.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Justin Anderson said the government isn’t trying to apply American law overseas. What was important, he told the judges, was where the information in the contested e-mails was exchanged—in this case, he contends, in the U.S.—not the location of the server where the data is stored. “The government is indifferent to where Microsoft might have to go to obtain these materials,” he said, echoing the July 2014 ruling against the company by U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska.

The law the judges will apply—the pre-Internet Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986—is severely antiquated. Smith says the issue needs to be handled by new legislation, a point reiterated by a Microsoft spokesperson after the Oct. 6 invalidation of the data-transfer pact: “The ECJ’s decision highlights the need for governments on both sides of the Atlantic to work together to reform digital privacy laws.” Smith has specifically mentioned the Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act, which would prohibit law enforcement from using warrants to access overseas information unless the customer is a U.S. citizen. Says Representative Suzan DelBene of Washington state, a Democratic co-sponsor of the bill who is an ex-Microsoft executive and whose husband is the corporation’s head of strategy: “We need to address it so all our technology companies know the legal framework and so individuals know how their data will be treated.” But its passage isn’t imminent. In court, Judge Lynch expressed annoyance: “It would be helpful if Congress would engage in that kind of nuanced regulation, and we’ll all be holding our breath until they do.”

A decision in the Ireland case isn’t expected until November. But Microsoft is already dealing with battles on the same issue. Earlier this year, police arrived at the São Paulo apartment of the company’s top executive in Brazil. They burst through the gates and demanded he present himself before a court. Why? Microsoft had refused to turn over Skype data stored in the U.S. that involved a Brazilian customer. Refusing to turn over the data violates Brazilian law; turning it over violates U.S. wiretapping law. For now, the executive—whom the company won’t name for security reasons—remains free as the case moves through Brazil’s courts. Says Tom Alberg, a co-founder of Madrona Venture Group, an early Amazon investor: “Every country is adopting its own rules, and it’s leading to some really weird results.”

—With Bob Van Voris

2015年10月5日 星期一

Facebook plans satellite ‘in 2016'

The project is part of Facebook's Internet.org project, which has come under fierce criticism in some countries

2015年10月4日 星期日

歐美"Safe Harbor"協議與 臉書 、谷歌或者推特數據的存儲

臉書在歐洲的好日子到頭了?
週二,歐洲法院將作出一項令人關注的判決,主要涉及歐洲數據在美國存儲的問題。它對臉書等網絡運營商來說,則可能意味著嚴冬的到來。
BdT Facebook
(德國之聲中文網)您知道您的 臉書 、谷歌或者是推特數據都存儲在哪裡嗎?這個問題問得很愚蠢是嗎?如果只是從互聯網的技術層面來看待這個問題的話,答案當然是肯定的。就現實來看,隨著全球技術標準的推廣以及快捷的網絡應用,一個德國用戶的數據無論是直接存儲在德國,還是斯堪的納維亞、愛爾蘭,亦或是美國都無所謂。眨眼間數據就可以從千里之外傳輸過來,互聯網世界真是太美妙了。
然而,真的這麼美妙嗎?數據保護者的回答是否定的。技術上的進步使得數據保護規定更容易遭到破壞,這也取決於數據在哪裡存儲以及分析。尤其是如臉書、谷歌等這樣的大運營商,可以方便地收集世界各地的數據,並存儲在公司所在地美國,從而置於美國的數據保護規定之下。而在這方面美國明顯要比歐洲寬鬆,這樣美國秘密情報機構如國家安全局就可以輕而易舉地染指這些數據。
"安全港"協議-15年的擺設?
直到現在政界人士和相關部門都對此視而不見,感覺就像歐洲和美國在數據保護方面的規定是一樣的。"Safe Harbor"協議, 翻譯過來就是安全港,是歐美之間15前簽訂的一份協議,保證了網絡運營商在美國與歐盟國家之間的數據流通不受阻礙。
現在該協議面臨被歐洲法院推翻的可能性,檢察長伊沃斯·博特已經於兩週前公佈了相關的個人評估報告,最後指出美國在對歐洲公民的個人數據保護方面是不夠的,尤其對美國秘密情報機構進行了指責。雖然這份評估報告對法院沒有約束力,但大多數的法官對該報告表示認同。如果在審​​理安全港協議時也持這種看法,那麼像臉書這樣的網絡運營商將會面臨巨大的麻煩。
歐洲法院審理美歐“安全港協議”
美國網絡運營商將會如何作出反應?
運營商有多種可能性對此作出反應,要么嚴格執行新規定,並且將歐洲用戶的數據存儲在歐洲。這是可以做到的,如臉書已經將歐洲業務轉到愛爾蘭的子公司旗下,由其專門負責歐洲用戶的數據管理。當然,還要在技術上做大量地調整,以避免用戶的數據存儲在美國。臉書也可以正式撤離歐洲,讓用戶使用美國的公司網頁。這樣的話就等於是和歐委會較勁,因為在這種情況下必須由歐盟出面,讓歐盟用戶的數據保護得到貫徹實施。
最終麻煩會落在誰上?臉書,還是歐盟?
要么臉書就讓所有歐洲用戶簽署聲明,允許自己的數據存儲在美國,如果不同意該條款就再也無法登陸臉書了。鑑於不斷上升的一刻也離不開臉書的網迷數量,這樣做不失為一條最妥善的捷徑。問題是,如果德國人真的從此無法登陸臉書了,屆時他們對歐委會的憤怒恐怕要大於網絡運營商糟糕的數據保護。

2015年10月1日 星期四

專利大戰稍歇:Microsoft, Google Agree to Dismiss All Pending Patent Infringement Lawsuits

Microsoft, Google Agree to Dismiss All Pending Patent Infringement Lawsuits

Companies had been litigating about 20 patent-infringement cases; agree to collaborate on ‘certain patent matters’

Googlea and Microsoft didn’t disclose whether money changed hands as part of the agreement.ENLARGE
Googlea and Microsoft didn’t disclose whether money changed hands as part of the agreement. PHOTO: MARCIO JOSE SANCHEZ/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Rivals Microsoft Corp. and Google Inc. agreed to dismiss patent-related lawsuits between the two companies, in a sign of the cooling intellectual-property wars among technology giants.
Microsoft and Google had roughly 20 lawsuits pending between them over uses of patents in mobile phones, Wi-Fi, Web video and other technologies. The companies agreed to dismiss all the pending patent cases, including those related to Google’s former Motorola Mobility smartphone unit, Microsoft and Google said in a joint statement Wednesday.
The companies didn’t disclose whether money changed hands as part of the agreement.
Microsoft and Google also said they had agreed to “collaborate on certain patent matters and anticipate working together in other areas.” Neither company elaborated on possible areas of cooperation.
The detente between Google and Microsoft is another sign of a change in what had been a period of aggressive patent wars in the technology industry, particularly over smartphones.
Companies including Google, Microsoft, Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. have fought over intellectual property involved in phone design, smartphone software and other issues. The pace of litigation has slowed recently, as some companies strike agreements to license each other’s patents.
Google, for example, reached far-reaching patent agreements in 2014 with Verizon Communications Inc., Samsung, Cisco Systems Inc. and LG Electronics Inc. It also has lobbied hard in Washington, D.C., to reform intellectual-property laws to reduce litigation. Microsoft and Samsung agreed earlier this year to end a contract dispute over the South Korean company’s use of patents controlled by Microsoft.
Bloomberg News earlier reported the end to Microsoft and Google’s patent disputes.

網誌存檔