Don’t worry. It’ll wake up in time to record Jersey Shore. But the question is, how deep a sleep will your DVR go into and how much power will it save?

As profiled earlier this week by consumer-electronics lifestyle pub Electronic House, a wave of energy-efficient innovation has already started to over-run a home device that suddenly — with the wide-scale adoption of high-definition programming and digital video recording — has become a huge power consumer.

Also read: How green are the devices that stream Netflix & Hulu?

The problem has gotten pretty bad. According to an NRDC study released last year, the typical cable-, satellite- or telco-leased HD DVR uses 446 kilowatt hours of power each year — more than an Energy Star rated 21-cubic-foot refrigerator, which uses 415 kWh per year.

Sleep’s the thing

A big part of the problem is that these devices are on 24/7. Even when I power down my DirecTV two-tuner HD DVR, for example, I’m for the most part only turning off the elegant blue-lit display. All of the box’s critical functions remain on.

CableLabs, the cable-industry research consortium, has pledged that by September, the top six cable operators in the U.S. — together representing 85 percent of cable subscriptions — will start leasing their customers set-tops that go into “light sleep” mode.

Defined by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star specifications, light sleep allows essential activities within a set-top to continue while other power-using tasks, such as channel tuning and video display, are discontinued. Unless it’s recording something, the box doesn’t need to be doing these things.

CableLabs research shows that this feature can cut power consumption by as much as 20 percent.

But chips currently available for set-top boxes enable a much more restful, power-saving night of slumber.

Chip sets manufactured by Broadcom, for example, enable a sleep level called “deep standby,” whereby the CPU and almost all other box functions are shut down. The device uses less than a watt of power in this mode, company officials say, and it can restart the basic task of decoding video in about four seconds.

As a Broadcom spokeswoman told us Thursday, the feature is available to the many multi-channel operators the company sells chips to. But for pay TV operators pimping out houses with whole-home-connected always-on systems, four seconds may be too slow. When it’s not inviting litigation from the broadcast networks by deleting their commercials, for example, Dish Network’s new Hopper DVR records every prime time show from the Big Four channels. When does it have time to enter deep sleep?

Citing EPA data, Electronic House pointed out that as of April, only two of the 57 pay TV set-tops that qualify for the Energy Star 3.0 specification enable a deep sleep mode. (Currently, Energy Star specs don’t mandate deep sleep, although the EPA is considering it for revised specifications that will debut next year.)

Beyond sleep

Fortunately, chipmakers have integrated a number of other power-saving features recently that don’t temporarily shut down the box. For example, multi-tuner devices used to require multiple chips. But new products from Broadcom and Intel have consolidated this process onto a single chip, saving the need for wattage in the process.

Meanwhile, so-called “thin clients” have already been widely adopted. Dispersed in areas of the house beyond the living room, these devices connect to the main set-top via Ethernet cable or coax, providing video programming access at a fraction of the power-use of a full-service DVR.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• TV Apps: Evolution from Novelty to Mainstream
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1
• CES 2012: a recap and analysis

Don’t worry. It’ll wake up in time to record Jersey Shore. But the question is, how deep a sleep will your DVR go into and how much power will it save?

As profiled earlier this week by consumer-electronics lifestyle pub Electronic House, a wave of energy-efficient innovation has already started to over-run a home device that suddenly — with the wide-scale adoption of high-definition programming and digital video recording — has become a huge power consumer.

Also read: How green are the devices that stream Netflix & Hulu?

The problem has gotten pretty bad. According to an NRDC study released last year, the typical cable-, satellite- or telco-leased HD DVR uses 446 kilowatt hours of power each year — more than an Energy Star rated 21-cubic-foot refrigerator, which uses 415 kWh per year.

Sleep’s the thing

A big part of the problem is that these devices are on 24/7. Even when I power down my DirecTV two-tuner HD DVR, for example, I’m for the most part only turning off the elegant blue-lit display. All of the box’s critical functions remain on.

CableLabs, the cable-industry research consortium, has pledged that by September, the top six cable operators in the U.S. — together representing 85 percent of cable subscriptions — will start leasing their customers set-tops that go into “light sleep” mode.

Defined by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star specifications, light sleep allows essential activities within a set-top to continue while other power-using tasks, such as channel tuning and video display, are discontinued. Unless it’s recording something, the box doesn’t need to be doing these things.

CableLabs research shows that this feature can cut power consumption by as much as 20 percent.

But chips currently available for set-top boxes enable a much more restful, power-saving night of slumber.

Chip sets manufactured by Broadcom, for example, enable a sleep level called “deep standby,” whereby the CPU and almost all other box functions are shut down. The device uses less than a watt of power in this mode, company officials say, and it can restart the basic task of decoding video in about four seconds.

As a Broadcom spokeswoman told us Thursday, the feature is available to the many multi-channel operators the company sells chips to. But for pay TV operators pimping out houses with whole-home-connected always-on systems, four seconds may be too slow. When it’s not inviting litigation from the broadcast networks by deleting their commercials, for example, Dish Network’s new Hopper DVR records every prime time show from the Big Four channels. When does it have time to enter deep sleep?

Citing EPA data, Electronic House pointed out that as of April, only two of the 57 pay TV set-tops that qualify for the Energy Star 3.0 specification enable a deep sleep mode. (Currently, Energy Star specs don’t mandate deep sleep, although the EPA is considering it for revised specifications that will debut next year.)

Beyond sleep

Fortunately, chipmakers have integrated a number of other power-saving features recently that don’t temporarily shut down the box. For example, multi-tuner devices used to require multiple chips. But new products from Broadcom and Intel have consolidated this process onto a single chip, saving the need for wattage in the process.

Meanwhile, so-called “thin clients” have already been widely adopted. Dispersed in areas of the house beyond the living room, these devices connect to the main set-top via Ethernet cable or coax, providing video programming access at a fraction of the power-use of a full-service DVR.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• TV Apps: Evolution from Novelty to Mainstream
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1
• CES 2012: a recap and analysis

Alt-transportation overload! Why is San Francisco so chock-full of these services? I’ve been thinking about it for awhile and I’ve got a pretty good idea. Here’s why I think it is:

Tech, startup cluster: One of the more obvious reasons is just the vibrant startup and developer ecosystem in San Francisco. Most of these alternative transportation services are reliant on mobile and web technology development, and having a strong developer and startup ecosystem here means there’s more of a braintrust of young creators willing to work on these tools. For example Scoot Networks’ secret sauce is based on using the iPhone as a dashboard for an electric scooter and Zimride’s new mobile app connects commuters and drivers in real time. In addition, local tech companies can provide the testing ground for some of these projects — both Ridepal and Scoot Networks are starting off by selling services to fellow tech companies.

Muni, BART, taxis and parking suck: There’s actually a real need for alternative transportation in San Francisco. Unlike in New York, where you can get a cab in most places pretty easily, and the subways system is pretty efficient, San Francisco’s public transportation and taxi services are pretty lacking. There are also a lot of commuters that come into San Francisco, but there’s very little affordable parking downtown.

San Franciscans are early adopters: San Francisco-ans have always been early adopters, given the city is the heart of the Valley and was the location of the birth of the Internet. Services that are reliant on iPhone use can actual gain traction here, because of the high penetration of iPhones. San Franciscans also care more than most about trying to have more eco-friendly, and more energy efficient, transportation, like car sharing and ride sharing.

Small enough: San Francisco is also compact and small enough that a startup can launch a pilot project here and can actually cover a decent amount of the city. While the same pilot project might be overwhelmed in Manhattan, San Francisco can offer a more compact scale with which to experiment.

City support: The city of San Francisco is actually generally very supportive of these types of transportation. Anything that can help alleviate the public transportation systems and parking spots in downtown can potentially get support from the city.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Cleantech, meet connectivity: a new era of energy efficiency
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Ups and downs for cleantech in Q1

Alt-transportation overload! Why is San Francisco so chock-full of these services? I’ve been thinking about it for awhile and I’ve got a pretty good idea. Here’s why I think it is:

Tech, startup cluster: One of the more obvious reasons is just the vibrant startup and developer ecosystem in San Francisco. Most of these alternative transportation services are reliant on mobile and web technology development, and having a strong developer and startup ecosystem here means there’s more of a braintrust of young creators willing to work on these tools. For example Scoot Networks’ secret sauce is based on using the iPhone as a dashboard for an electric scooter and Zimride’s new mobile app connects commuters and drivers in real time. In addition, local tech companies can provide the testing ground for some of these projects — both Ridepal and Scoot Networks are starting off by selling services to fellow tech companies.

Muni, BART, taxis and parking suck: There’s actually a real need for alternative transportation in San Francisco. Unlike in New York, where you can get a cab in most places pretty easily, and the subways system is pretty efficient, San Francisco’s public transportation and taxi services are pretty lacking. There are also a lot of commuters that come into San Francisco, but there’s very little affordable parking downtown.

San Franciscans are early adopters: San Francisco-ans have always been early adopters, given the city is the heart of the Valley and was the location of the birth of the Internet. Services that are reliant on iPhone use can actual gain traction here, because of the high penetration of iPhones. San Franciscans also care more than most about trying to have more eco-friendly, and more energy efficient, transportation, like car sharing and ride sharing.

Small enough: San Francisco is also compact and small enough that a startup can launch a pilot project here and can actually cover a decent amount of the city. While the same pilot project might be overwhelmed in Manhattan, San Francisco can offer a more compact scale with which to experiment.

City support: The city of San Francisco is actually generally very supportive of these types of transportation. Anything that can help alleviate the public transportation systems and parking spots in downtown can potentially get support from the city.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Cleantech, meet connectivity: a new era of energy efficiency
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Ups and downs for cleantech in Q1

Alt-transportation overload! Why is San Francisco so chock-full of these services? I’ve been thinking about it for awhile and I’ve got a pretty good idea. Here’s why I think it is:

Tech, startup cluster: One of the more obvious reasons is just the vibrant startup and developer ecosystem in San Francisco. Most of these alternative transportation services are reliant on mobile and web technology development, and having a strong developer and startup ecosystem here means there’s more of a braintrust of young creators willing to work on these tools. For example Scoot Networks’ secret sauce is based on using the iPhone as a dashboard for an electric scooter and Zimride’s new mobile app connects commuters and drivers in real time. In addition, local tech companies can provide the testing ground for some of these projects — both Ridepal and Scoot Networks are starting off by selling services to fellow tech companies.

Muni, BART, taxis and parking suck: There’s actually a real need for alternative transportation in San Francisco. Unlike in New York, where you can get a cab in most places pretty easily, and the subways system is pretty efficient, San Francisco’s public transportation and taxi services are pretty lacking. There are also a lot of commuters that come into San Francisco, but there’s very little affordable parking downtown.

San Franciscans are early adopters: San Francisco-ans have always been early adopters, given the city is the heart of the Valley and was the location of the birth of the Internet. Services that are reliant on iPhone use can actual gain traction here, because of the high penetration of iPhones. San Franciscans also care more than most about trying to have more eco-friendly, and more energy efficient, transportation, like car sharing and ride sharing.

Small enough: San Francisco is also compact and small enough that a startup can launch a pilot project here and can actually cover a decent amount of the city. While the same pilot project might be overwhelmed in Manhattan, San Francisco can offer a more compact scale with which to experiment.

City support: The city of San Francisco is actually generally very supportive of these types of transportation. Anything that can help alleviate the public transportation systems and parking spots in downtown can potentially get support from the city.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Cleantech, meet connectivity: a new era of energy efficiency
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Ups and downs for cleantech in Q1

“Ultimately, this case is about consumer choice,” said Dish in a complaint filed Thursday in Manhattan federal court. The satellite TV provider wants the court to declare that it is not infringing copyright or breaching the terms of its contracts with Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS. Meanwhile, the Hollywood Reporter reports that Fox has filed a separate suit against Dish to “aggressively defend the future of free, over-the-air television.”

Dish’s ad-skipping device stands out because, unlike other DVRs, viewers can skip an entire set of commercials rather than fast-forwarding or skipping in 30 second jumps.

The so-called “ad eraser” may delight consumers, but the TV networks reacted angrily during a conclave with advertisers in New York last week.

“How does Charlie Ergen expect me to produce ‘CSI’ without commercials?” said chief executive of CBS Corporation, Leslie Moonves, according to the New York Times. (Also, see my colleague Daniel Frankel’s excellent report on the strategy behind Dish’s “Molotov cocktail” at the broadcasters.)

In its complaint, Dish portrays its technology as a natural extension of existing time-shifting practices and points out that Americans have for decades chosen to disregard ads in one way or another.

Dish also claims that its technology does not alter the broadcasters’ signals and that viewers can only skip the ads the day after a show is aired live.

The TV networks are facing significant disruptions despite receiving new fees that oblige cable and satellite providers to pay them for carrying their over-the-air signals. In addition to its legal tussle with Dish over ad skipping, the TV networks are also suing Aereo, a start-up service that uses tiny antennas to broadcast shows directly to viewers’ iPads and iPhones.

Here’s a copy of Dish’s complaint:

Dish v TV Networkshttp://www.scribd.com/embeds/94727377/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-206ttdhsm6nafzerpogj

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

“Ultimately, this case is about consumer choice,” said Dish in a complaint filed Thursday in Manhattan federal court. The satellite TV provider wants the court to declare that it is not infringing copyright or breaching the terms of its contracts with Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS. Meanwhile, the Hollywood Reporter reports that Fox has filed a separate suit against Dish to “aggressively defend the future of free, over-the-air television.”

Dish’s ad-skipping device stands out because, unlike other DVRs, viewers can skip an entire set of commercials rather than fast-forwarding or skipping in 30 second jumps.

The so-called “ad eraser” may delight consumers, but the TV networks reacted angrily during a conclave with advertisers in New York last week.

“How does Charlie Ergen expect me to produce ‘CSI’ without commercials?” said chief executive of CBS Corporation, Leslie Moonves, according to the New York Times. (Also, see my colleague Daniel Frankel’s excellent report on the strategy behind Dish’s “Molotov cocktail” at the broadcasters.)

In its complaint, Dish portrays its technology as a natural extension of existing time-shifting practices and points out that Americans have for decades chosen to disregard ads in one way or another.

Dish also claims that its technology does not alter the broadcasters’ signals and that viewers can only skip the ads the day after a show is aired live.

The TV networks are facing significant disruptions despite receiving new fees that oblige cable and satellite providers to pay them for carrying their over-the-air signals. In addition to its legal tussle with Dish over ad skipping, the TV networks are also suing Aereo, a start-up service that uses tiny antennas to broadcast shows directly to viewers’ iPads and iPhones.

Here’s a copy of Dish’s complaint:

Dish v TV Networkshttp://www.scribd.com/embeds/94727377/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-206ttdhsm6nafzerpogj

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

“Ultimately, this case is about consumer choice,” said Dish in a complaint filed Thursday in Manhattan federal court. The satellite TV provider wants the court to declare that it is not infringing copyright or breaching the terms of its contracts with Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS. Meanwhile, the Hollywood Reporter reports that Fox has filed a separate suit against Dish to “aggressively defend the future of free, over-the-air television.”

Dish’s ad-skipping device stands out because, unlike other DVRs, viewers can skip an entire set of commercials rather than fast-forwarding or skipping in 30 second jumps.

The so-called “ad eraser” may delight consumers, but the TV networks reacted angrily during a conclave with advertisers in New York last week.

“How does Charlie Ergen expect me to produce ‘CSI’ without commercials?” said chief executive of CBS Corporation, Leslie Moonves, according to the New York Times. (Also, see my colleague Daniel Frankel’s excellent report on the strategy behind Dish’s “Molotov cocktail” at the broadcasters.)

In its complaint, Dish portrays its technology as a natural extension of existing time-shifting practices and points out that Americans have for decades chosen to disregard ads in one way or another.

Dish also claims that its technology does not alter the broadcasters’ signals and that viewers can only skip the ads the day after a show is aired live.

The TV networks are facing significant disruptions despite receiving new fees that oblige cable and satellite providers to pay them for carrying their over-the-air signals. In addition to its legal tussle with Dish over ad skipping, the TV networks are also suing Aereo, a start-up service that uses tiny antennas to broadcast shows directly to viewers’ iPads and iPhones.

Here’s a copy of Dish’s complaint:

Dish v TV Networkshttp://www.scribd.com/embeds/94727377/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-206ttdhsm6nafzerpogj

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

“Ultimately, this case is about consumer choice,” said Dish in a complaint filed Thursday in Manhattan federal court. The satellite TV provider wants the court to declare that it is not infringing copyright or breaching the terms of its contracts with Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS. Meanwhile, the Hollywood Reporter reports that Fox has filed a separate suit against Dish to “aggressively defend the future of free, over-the-air television.”

Dish’s ad-skipping device stands out because, unlike other DVRs, viewers can skip an entire set of commercials rather than fast-forwarding or skipping in 30 second jumps.

The so-called “ad eraser” may delight consumers, but the TV networks reacted angrily during a conclave with advertisers in New York last week.

“How does Charlie Ergen expect me to produce ‘CSI’ without commercials?” said chief executive of CBS Corporation, Leslie Moonves, according to the New York Times. (Also, see my colleague Daniel Frankel’s excellent report on the strategy behind Dish’s “Molotov cocktail” at the broadcasters.)

In its complaint, Dish portrays its technology as a natural extension of existing time-shifting practices and points out that Americans have for decades chosen to disregard ads in one way or another.

Dish also claims that its technology does not alter the broadcasters’ signals and that viewers can only skip the ads the day after a show is aired live.

The TV networks are facing significant disruptions despite receiving new fees that oblige cable and satellite providers to pay them for carrying their over-the-air signals. In addition to its legal tussle with Dish over ad skipping, the TV networks are also suing Aereo, a start-up service that uses tiny antennas to broadcast shows directly to viewers’ iPads and iPhones.

Here’s a copy of Dish’s complaint:

Dish v TV Networkshttp://www.scribd.com/embeds/94727377/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-206ttdhsm6nafzerpogj

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

Jim Bankoff, Chairman and CEO, Vox Media

Data helps destroy containers, and that’s a good thing. Data creates new content and information experiences and helps bring an end to the notion of content silos, Betaworks’ John Borthwick said: “The moment you start thinking about it as information, you start to think less about the package and more about the users.” Forrester’s James McQuivey pointed out that it’s not just a “tablet or iPad world,” but an “everything world” — and millions of people are consuming content not on iPads or e-readers but on gaming systems like the Xbox 360.

Digital storytelling is a native art. Stories on the Internet are not a new form of magazine or newspaper stories, but a medium in their own right — just like radio or TV. Publishers should develop their platforms accordingly rather than just repurposing other print vehicles. When Wenner Media released Us Weekly on iPad for the first time, it figured out a way to enable the “passalong” that’s so popular with the magazine’s print edition. As Vox Media CEO Jim Bankoff told us, George Lucas had to build a new story-telling platform called Lucasfilm so that he could tell the story of “Star Wars.” And don’t say blogging is dead: “That’s like saying creativity is dead, or personal expression is dead,” said WordPress founder Matt Mullenweg.

Om Malik interviews John Borthwick, founder and CEO, Betaworks.

Not all “media” are created equal. Union Square’s Fred Wilson and Betaworks’ John Borthwick gave a rude awakening to Big Media executives, urging them to give up control of their content — and even to stop calling it “content.” But declaring new digital networks victors over somewhat different traditional print and broadcast operators after simply labelling each “media” can sometimes seem counterproductive and insufficient: What’s being created now are entirely new kinds of information vehicles. The industry is truly “at the crossroads” suggested by the paidContent 2012 conference’s subtitle– but technologists and information producers may now be heading in different directions, as well as speaking different languages.

Publishers have to sell their brands directly to consumers. “Publishing companies need to understand that the thing [companies] like Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other retailers really respect is a brand,” Pottermore CEO Charlie Redmayne said in an explanation of why those companies agreed to send customers directly to the Pottermore site to buy e-books. “If we’ve demonstrated anything, it’s the power of a brand,” he said, noting that over half of Pottermore’s e-book sales result from readers coming directly to the site instead of being referred there by the retailers. Not every brand is Harry Potter — but “need to understand that their role in the future is creating these brands,” Redmayne said.

It’s time to toss CPM as a yardstick for online advertising success. How can Facebook be so inept at advertising? Because it’s handing advertisers a sledgehammer not a scalpel. Betaworks’ Borthwick and GigaOM’s Om Malik say it’s time to discard old-fashioned display ads as the basic unit of online ad success. Instead, it’s time for advertisers to adapt their ads to the evolving nature of the internet itself. That means forgetting about CPMs and focusing on data and social dynamics. On a broader level, it means re-imagining basic precepts of advertising and product discovery in a world where Web pages are being eclipsed by new types of online discovery and interaction.

If you didn’t make it to the TimesCenter yesterday, you’ll find video of all yesterday’s panels here (registration required). And let us know your takeaways from the day in the comments.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Connected Consumer Q2: Digital music meets the cloud; e-book growth explodes
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1

Jim Bankoff, Chairman and CEO, Vox Media

Data helps destroy containers, and that’s a good thing. Data creates new content and information experiences and helps bring an end to the notion of content silos, Betaworks’ John Borthwick said: “The moment you start thinking about it as information, you start to think less about the package and more about the users.” Forrester’s James McQuivey pointed out that it’s not just a “tablet or iPad world,” but an “everything world” — and millions of people are consuming content not on iPads or e-readers but on gaming systems like the Xbox 360.

Digital storytelling is a native art. Stories on the Internet are not a new form of magazine or newspaper stories, but a medium in their own right — just like radio or TV. Publishers should develop their platforms accordingly rather than just repurposing other print vehicles. When Wenner Media released Us Weekly on iPad for the first time, it figured out a way to enable the “passalong” that’s so popular with the magazine’s print edition. As Vox Media CEO Jim Bankoff told us, George Lucas had to build a new story-telling platform called Lucasfilm so that he could tell the story of “Star Wars.” And don’t say blogging is dead: “That’s like saying creativity is dead, or personal expression is dead,” said WordPress founder Matt Mullenweg.

Om Malik interviews John Borthwick, founder and CEO, Betaworks.

Not all “media” are created equal. Union Square’s Fred Wilson and Betaworks’ John Borthwick gave a rude awakening to Big Media executives, urging them to give up control of their content — and even to stop calling it “content.” But declaring new digital networks victors over somewhat different traditional print and broadcast operators after simply labelling each “media” can sometimes seem counterproductive and insufficient: What’s being created now are entirely new kinds of information vehicles. The industry is truly “at the crossroads” suggested by the paidContent 2012 conference’s subtitle– but technologists and information producers may now be heading in different directions, as well as speaking different languages.

Publishers have to sell their brands directly to consumers. “Publishing companies need to understand that the thing [companies] like Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other retailers really respect is a brand,” Pottermore CEO Charlie Redmayne said in an explanation of why those companies agreed to send customers directly to the Pottermore site to buy e-books. “If we’ve demonstrated anything, it’s the power of a brand,” he said, noting that over half of Pottermore’s e-book sales result from readers coming directly to the site instead of being referred there by the retailers. Not every brand is Harry Potter — but “need to understand that their role in the future is creating these brands,” Redmayne said.

It’s time to toss CPM as a yardstick for online advertising success. How can Facebook be so inept at advertising? Because it’s handing advertisers a sledgehammer not a scalpel. Betaworks’ Borthwick and GigaOM’s Om Malik say it’s time to discard old-fashioned display ads as the basic unit of online ad success. Instead, it’s time for advertisers to adapt their ads to the evolving nature of the internet itself. That means forgetting about CPMs and focusing on data and social dynamics. On a broader level, it means re-imagining basic precepts of advertising and product discovery in a world where Web pages are being eclipsed by new types of online discovery and interaction.

If you didn’t make it to the TimesCenter yesterday, you’ll find video of all yesterday’s panels here (registration required). And let us know your takeaways from the day in the comments.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Connected Consumer Q2: Digital music meets the cloud; e-book growth explodes
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1

Waterstones lacks an e-reader strategy, and Barnes & Noble’s Nook device had appeared a candidate to fill the gap. Another big UK retailer, WH Smith, has thrown its lot in with Nook rival Kobo.

Now Nook may need to advance internationally with apps on hardware other than its own, and with Microsoft, rather than local high street retailers, as its key partner…

http://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F47328667&auto_play=false&show_artwork=true&color=ff3500

Speaking to me after our panel interview at paidContent 2012, Barnes & Noble’s digital newsstand and emerging content GM Jonathan Shar said:

“We’re excited to look at those (international) opportunities. The recent Microsoft announcement and the formation of NewCo allows us to think even more globally, as Windows 8 is a global platform.

“As we develop Nook experiences and reading apps for Windows 8, we’ve got to think beyond the U.S. and think globally.

“We’re looking at all our options. We think the value proposition we’ve built with the Nook brand translates outside of the U.S. and will look across that.

“In the U.S., we have both the Nook devices but also great Nook reading apps across multiple platforms. We’re looking at that strategy outside the U.S. – what the mix will be is to be determined.

“We’re evaluating the international market in many markets. We anticipate that there will be competition in these markets. We’re prepared for all that.”

Putting Nook in to a new business co-owned by Microsoft will allow Barnes & Noble to deliver Nook apps and services on new Windows 8 tablets.

A solely apps-and-services strategy may be a useful fallback strategy for Barnes & Noble overseas. But it’s not the same as selling the Nook e-reader, the Trojan Horse for those services, as well.

Now Amazon’s Waterstones deal means Barnes & Nobile has lost to its biggest rival the opportunity to sell that device through the UK’s biggest bookseller.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A global mobile handset forecast: 2011-2015
• A look back at mobile in Q1
• Survey: the next wave of enterprise mobility

Waterstones lacks an e-reader strategy, and Barnes & Noble’s Nook device had appeared a candidate to fill the gap. Another big UK retailer, WH Smith, has thrown its lot in with Nook rival Kobo.

Now Nook may need to advance internationally with apps on hardware other than its own, and with Microsoft, rather than local high street retailers, as its key partner…

http://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F47328667&auto_play=false&show_artwork=true&color=ff3500

Speaking to me after our panel interview at paidContent 2012, Barnes & Noble’s digital newsstand and emerging content GM Jonathan Shar said:

“We’re excited to look at those (international) opportunities. The recent Microsoft announcement and the formation of NewCo allows us to think even more globally, as Windows 8 is a global platform.

“As we develop Nook experiences and reading apps for Windows 8, we’ve got to think beyond the U.S. and think globally.

“We’re looking at all our options. We think the value proposition we’ve built with the Nook brand translates outside of the U.S. and will look across that.

“In the U.S., we have both the Nook devices but also great Nook reading apps across multiple platforms. We’re looking at that strategy outside the U.S. – what the mix will be is to be determined.

“We’re evaluating the international market in many markets. We anticipate that there will be competition in these markets. We’re prepared for all that.”

Putting Nook in to a new business co-owned by Microsoft will allow Barnes & Noble to deliver Nook apps and services on new Windows 8 tablets.

A solely apps-and-services strategy may be a useful fallback strategy for Barnes & Noble overseas. But it’s not the same as selling the Nook e-reader, the Trojan Horse for those services, as well.

Now Amazon’s Waterstones deal means Barnes & Nobile has lost to its biggest rival the opportunity to sell that device through the UK’s biggest bookseller.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A global mobile handset forecast: 2011-2015
• A look back at mobile in Q1
• Survey: the next wave of enterprise mobility

Karen Petraska, an executive in NASA’s CIO office, told attendees of the Uptime Symposium on Tuesday that the agency is scaling back development now that the OpenStack has hit the commercialization stage, according to a report in Web Host Industry Review. Rackspace launched its OpenStack public cloud early this month and Hewlett-Packard put its public cloud iteration into beta soon thereafter so there is no shortage of OpenStack cloud suppliers.

According to the report, Petraska said rather than competing with cloud providers, NASA wants to be a “smart consumer” of commercial cloud services. She also said NASA would also stop development for the OpenStack-related Nebula infrastructure-as-a-platform project. Petraska could not be reached for comment but other sources close to OpenStack confirmed the report.

NASA’s move is not surprising given the context. For one thing, the space agency — which is already navigating a new role as the U.S. discontinued the space shuttle effort — is really not a software development shop. When NASA and Rackspace started down this road two years ago many of the NASA software developers were actually contractors at a company called ANSO Labs, which Rackspace subsequently acquired. Many of the rest of the NASA OpenStack contingent also left the agency to pursue OpenStack-related work at Rackspace or other companies, including Nebula (not the same thing as the Nebula project Petraska mentioned ) or Piston Computing (see disclosure).

OpenStack is viewed by proponents as cloud infrastructure that will let them offer cloud services that can compete with Amazon Web Services. Other OpenStack backers include IBM, Red Hat and Cisco.

Disclosure: Piston is backed by True Ventures, a venture capital firm that is an investor in the parent company of this blog, Giga Omni Media. Om Malik, founder of Giga Omni Media, is also a venture partner at True.

Feature photo courtesy of Flickr user NASA Goddard Photo and Video

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Infrastructure Q1: IaaS Comes Down to Earth; Big Data Takes Flight
• Infrastructure Q3: OpenStack and flash step into the spotlight
• Infrastructure Q2: Big data and PaaS gain more momentum

Karen Petraska, an executive in NASA’s CIO office, told attendees of the Uptime Symposium on Tuesday that the agency is scaling back development now that the OpenStack has hit the commercialization stage, according to a report in Web Host Industry Review. Rackspace launched its OpenStack public cloud early this month and Hewlett-Packard put its public cloud iteration into beta soon thereafter so there is no shortage of OpenStack cloud suppliers.

According to the report, Petraska said rather than competing with cloud providers, NASA wants to be a “smart consumer” of commercial cloud services. She also said NASA would also stop development for the OpenStack-related Nebula infrastructure-as-a-platform project. Petraska could not be reached for comment but other sources close to OpenStack confirmed the report.

NASA’s move is not surprising given the context. For one thing, the space agency — which is already navigating a new role as the U.S. discontinued the space shuttle effort — is really not a software development shop. When NASA and Rackspace started down this road two years ago many of the NASA software developers were actually contractors at a company called ANSO Labs, which Rackspace subsequently acquired. Many of the rest of the NASA OpenStack contingent also left the agency to pursue OpenStack-related work at Rackspace or other companies, including Nebula (not the same thing as the Nebula project Petraska mentioned ) or Piston Computing (see disclosure).

OpenStack is viewed by proponents as cloud infrastructure that will let them offer cloud services that can compete with Amazon Web Services. Other OpenStack backers include IBM, Red Hat and Cisco.

Disclosure: Piston is backed by True Ventures, a venture capital firm that is an investor in the parent company of this blog, Giga Omni Media. Om Malik, founder of Giga Omni Media, is also a venture partner at True.

Feature photo courtesy of Flickr user NASA Goddard Photo and Video

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Infrastructure Q1: IaaS Comes Down to Earth; Big Data Takes Flight
• Infrastructure Q3: OpenStack and flash step into the spotlight
• Infrastructure Q2: Big data and PaaS gain more momentum

Waterstones lacks an e-reader strategy, and Barnes & Noble’s Nook device had appeared a candidate to fill the gap. Another big UK retailer, WH Smith, has thrown its lot in with Nook rival Kobo.

Now Nook may need to advance internationally with apps on hardware other than its own, and with Microsoft, rather than local high street retailers, as its key partner…

http://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F47328667&auto_play=false&show_artwork=true&color=ff3500

Speaking to me after our panel interview at paidContent 2012, Barnes & Noble’s digital newsstand and emerging content GM Jonathan Shar said:

“We’re excited to look at those (international) opportunities. The recent Microsoft announcement and the formation of NewCo allows us to think even more globally, as Windows 8 is a global platform.

“As we develop Nook experiences and reading apps for Windows 8, we’ve got to think beyond the U.S. and think globally.

“We’re looking at all our options. We think the value proposition we’ve built with the Nook brand translates outside of the U.S. and will look across that.

“In the U.S., we have both the Nook devices but also great Nook reading apps across multiple platforms. We’re looking at that strategy outside the U.S. – what the mix will be is to be determined.

“We’re evaluating the international market in many markets. We anticipate that there will be competition in these markets. We’re prepared for all that.”

Putting Nook in to a new business co-owned by Microsoft will allow Barnes & Noble to deliver Nook apps and services on new Windows 8 tablets.

A solely apps-and-services strategy may be a useful fallback strategy for Barnes & Noble overseas. But it’s not the same as selling the Nook e-reader, the Trojan Horse for those services, as well.

Now Amazon’s Waterstones deal means Barnes & Nobile has lost to its biggest rival the opportunity to sell that device through the UK’s biggest bookseller.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A global mobile handset forecast: 2011-2015
• A look back at mobile in Q1
• Survey: the next wave of enterprise mobility

The California Public Utilities Commission voted 5-0 in favor of expanding the current “cap” on net metering, which requires utilities to allow for net metering for just 5 percent of the total electricity demand from its customers. The previous cap was determined by taking the highest peak demand ever recorded in the utility territory.

But solar energy proponents have argued that utilities should calculate the cap by adding up the peak use of individual customers instead, of using the highest peak. Using this method will take into consideration that each customer’s peak demand varies at different times. The commission approved this new method on Thursday, and this could in effect double the amount of electricity (in terms of megawatts) that utilities could allow in the net metering program. Without the new method, Pacific Gas & Electric, for example, could stop accepting new applications in 2013 because it will likely have reached the cap.

The net metering program is open to home owners, commercial building owners and schools, and it includes all renewable energy generation equipment (the majority is solar panels) of 1 MW or less. Customers who enroll in net metering don’t get a check for the electricity they export to the grid, but get credits on their utility bills. The commission sees the program also as a way to create jobs.

Utility push back

Lawmakers have raised the cap for net metering before, and such an effort faced strong resistance from utilities. Part of the argument against expanding the program is who will provide the cost for maintaining the electric grid for the program. Net metering customers don’t pay a grid maintenance charge even though they rely on it to export excess electricity and draw power from it when their solar panels aren’t producing power. That means customers who are not part of the net metering program may in fact be footing a significant cost of the program.

Some critics also contend that affluent customers are more likely to install solar panels and take advantage of net metering. People on different side of this debate have certainly offered numbers to bolster their arguments, but the commissioners say they want to do their own study and figure out if they need to modify the program. The commission staff will do a new cost-and-benefit analysis on this topic.

“The report should quantify the costs and benefits of (net metering) to participants and non-participants and should further disaggregate the results by utility, customer class, and household income groups within the residential class. The study should also seek to gather and present data on the income distribution of residential (net metering) participants,” according to the written decision the commission approved Thursday

The commission wants the study done by Oct. 1, 2013, and it would suspend the net metering program for new enrollees starting on Jan. 1, 2015 if it needs more time beyond that to reform the program.

Images courtesy of SolarCity.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A 2011 Green IT Forecast
• After Solyndra: analyzing the solar industry
• Flash analysis: lessons from Solyndra’s fall

John Markoff of the New York Times gave a good overview of the debate in an article on Monday. He writes that social scientists — from universities and some large companies – are upset with Google and its cohorts because their usual practice of not releasing the source data from studies makes it very difficult to validate or invalidate company research.

Google, the only company among itself, Facebook and Microsoft that responded to Markoff’s request for comment, predictably cited privacy concerns as a primary reason it doesn’t release much of the data behind its research.

It’s tough to argue with privacy

The argument for openness is clear and powerful — access to source data is key to validating one’s claims, even more so if data really has become so important as to be called the fourth paradigm of science – but the argument that releasing data would potentially violate consumer privacy is difficult to overcome if you’re looking at the debate objectively. Google and Facebook, in particular, are locked into decrees with the Federal Trade Commission that have them subject to privacy audits for the next two decades. They’re also constantly under the public microscope for privacy violations both real and perceived. Legally and publicly, they can’t afford too many more gaffes.

And gaffes do happen, even when data is supposed to be anonymous. In 2006, for example, AOL released three months worth of supposedly anonymous search records for researchers to use. The only problem is that they weren’t anonymous at all — New York Times reporters were able to connect the anonymous data to individuals, and others noted some disturbing personal data that would be devastating if it were linked to an individual.

If you ask a privacy expert today, you’ll likely hear that this situation is common thanks to our newfound proficiencies in analytics. It’s one reason that rules about protecting users’ personally identifiable information aren’t as meaningful as they once were. During a recent conversation with NYU Stern School of Business professor Arun Sundararajan about intent-based privacy, he called anonymity a “gray area.”

“Targeting has gotten to the point where firms can know who you are without knowing your name,” he told me.

Ankur Teredesai

But what if the two opponents borrow a practice from the legal industry to solve their problem, protect consumer privacy and still ensure robust scientific review? Ankur Teredesai, a University of Washington professor and data mining researcher, says that while he would love access to data from sites such as Google, it’s a little unreasonable to expect firms to make their source data public without some serious checks in place. One compromise he suggested was for conferences (or, presumably, academic journals) to condition presentation or publication on release of data to a small number of reviewers rather than the entire research community.

It’s like when parties in litigation demand trade secrets from the other side — a judge typically views documents in private and decides whether they’re discoverable and, if so, whether major portions should be redacted. At the very least, peer review by editors prohibited from releasing the data could help ensure studies are accurate, even if it means other researchers can’t actually get their hands on the data.

Additionally, Teredesai explained, it’s important to draw a distinction between data from behavioral studies and source data for technical papers. In the case of the latter, source data doesn’t matter nearly as much as being able to test the algorithms and replicate the results on any similar dataset.

Still, Teredesai acknowledged, keeping data private is a little annoying and academic researchers end up having to reinvent the wheel to use social or consumer data. Already, he said, he’s spending a not-insignificant amount time and resources gathering data manually from Twitter because Twitter stopped whitelisting access to its data for academia. Getting relevant data from other sources can be much more difficult.

A world divided?

If there isn’t some sort of compromise, it’s conceivable we could see a divided research space with industry on one side and academia on the other, each playing by their own rules. In that scenario, industry wins. Markoff quotes a letter to the journal Nature from HP Labs social media director and industry-research critic that sums up this particular concern:

“If this trend continues,” [Huberman] wrote, “we’ll see a small group of scientists with access to private data repositories enjoy an unfair amount of attention in the community at the expense of equally talented researchers whose only flaw is the lack of right ‘connections’ to private data.”

ACM SIGKDD Chair and ChoozOn CTO Usama Fayyad told me last year during a discussion at the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining that industry has already taken the lead in big data research for the same reasons Huberman cited as concerns in the social science realm. It was easy to hire talent when he was chief data officer at Yahoo, Fayyad said, because Yahoo had the huge datasets they wanted to work with and the hardware on which to run analyses.

That hasn’t changed. Everywhere you turn, you hear stories of large web companies plucking students out of Stanford Ph.D. programs and paying them a lot of money to come to work on computer science problems, or of students dropping out to launch their own startups.

Already, Teresedai noted, industry has spearheaded a group within the ACM called WSDM, whose conference doesn’t have strict requirements on openness or replicability as many other academic conferences do. Armed with lots of good data and lots of money to hire talent, industry can play by its own rules and expect continued praise for its work in social science research.

Shared mission, shared effort.

That’s why a tight relationship between web companies and everyone else around social and consumer data is so critical. Oren Etzioni, founder and CEO of Decide.com and computer science professor at the University of Washington, told me during a recent conversation that the relationship between university computer science departments and industry is a “bright spot in the economy.” It’s a cycle where research begins in universities and then is carried on in commercial settings where projects can get the resources they need to flourish and become more useful.

Maybe a similarly symbiotic relationship is possible around data, even if both sides have to bend a bit. Etzioni said university researchers certainly like it when new technologies and techniques are open sourced so they use and study them, adding, however, that “where you stand [on an issue] is often influenced by where you sit.”

Feature image courtesy of Shutterstock user llin Sergey; train image courtesy of Flickr user John Spooner.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• NewNet Q4: Platform mania and social commerce shakeout
• Infrastructure Q4: Big data gets bigger and SaaS startups shine
• Dissecting the data: 5 issues for our digital future

John Markoff of the New York Times gave a good overview of the debate in an article on Monday. He writes that social scientists — from universities and some large companies – are upset with Google and its cohorts because their usual practice of not releasing the source data from studies makes it very difficult to validate or invalidate company research.

Google, the only company among itself, Facebook and Microsoft that responded to Markoff’s request for comment, predictably cited privacy concerns as a primary reason it doesn’t release much of the data behind its research.

It’s tough to argue with privacy

The argument for openness is clear and powerful — access to source data is key to validating one’s claims, even more so if data really has become so important as to be called the fourth paradigm of science – but the argument that releasing data would potentially violate consumer privacy is difficult to overcome if you’re looking at the debate objectively. Google and Facebook, in particular, are locked into decrees with the Federal Trade Commission that have them subject to privacy audits for the next two decades. They’re also constantly under the public microscope for privacy violations both real and perceived. Legally and publicly, they can’t afford too many more gaffes.

And gaffes do happen, even when data is supposed to be anonymous. In 2006, for example, AOL released three months worth of supposedly anonymous search records for researchers to use. The only problem is that they weren’t anonymous at all — New York Times reporters were able to connect the anonymous data to individuals, and others noted some disturbing personal data that would be devastating if it were linked to an individual.

If you ask a privacy expert today, you’ll likely hear that this situation is common thanks to our newfound proficiencies in analytics. It’s one reason that rules about protecting users’ personally identifiable information aren’t as meaningful as they once were. During a recent conversation with NYU Stern School of Business professor Arun Sundararajan about intent-based privacy, he called anonymity a “gray area.”

“Targeting has gotten to the point where firms can know who you are without knowing your name,” he told me.

Ankur Teredesai

But what if the two opponents borrow a practice from the legal industry to solve their problem, protect consumer privacy and still ensure robust scientific review? Ankur Teredesai, a University of Washington professor and data mining researcher, says that while he would love access to data from sites such as Google, it’s a little unreasonable to expect firms to make their source data public without some serious checks in place. One compromise he suggested was for conferences (or, presumably, academic journals) to condition presentation or publication on release of data to a small number of reviewers rather than the entire research community.

It’s like when parties in litigation demand trade secrets from the other side — a judge typically views documents in private and decides whether they’re discoverable and, if so, whether major portions should be redacted. At the very least, peer review by editors prohibited from releasing the data could help ensure studies are accurate, even if it means other researchers can’t actually get their hands on the data.

Additionally, Teredesai explained, it’s important to draw a distinction between data from behavioral studies and source data for technical papers. In the case of the latter, source data doesn’t matter nearly as much as being able to test the algorithms and replicate the results on any similar dataset.

Still, Teredesai acknowledged, keeping data private is a little annoying and academic researchers end up having to reinvent the wheel to use social or consumer data. Already, he said, he’s spending a not-insignificant amount time and resources gathering data manually from Twitter because Twitter stopped whitelisting access to its data for academia. Getting relevant data from other sources can be much more difficult.

A world divided?

If there isn’t some sort of compromise, it’s conceivable we could see a divided research space with industry on one side and academia on the other, each playing by their own rules. In that scenario, industry wins. Markoff quotes a letter to the journal Nature from HP Labs social media director and industry-research critic that sums up this particular concern:

“If this trend continues,” [Huberman] wrote, “we’ll see a small group of scientists with access to private data repositories enjoy an unfair amount of attention in the community at the expense of equally talented researchers whose only flaw is the lack of right ‘connections’ to private data.”

ACM SIGKDD Chair and ChoozOn CTO Usama Fayyad told me last year during a discussion at the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining that industry has already taken the lead in big data research for the same reasons Huberman cited as concerns in the social science realm. It was easy to hire talent when he was chief data officer at Yahoo, Fayyad said, because Yahoo had the huge datasets they wanted to work with and the hardware on which to run analyses.

That hasn’t changed. Everywhere you turn, you hear stories of large web companies plucking students out of Stanford Ph.D. programs and paying them a lot of money to come to work on computer science problems, or of students dropping out to launch their own startups.

Already, Teresedai noted, industry has spearheaded a group within the ACM called WSDM, whose conference doesn’t have strict requirements on openness or replicability as many other academic conferences do. Armed with lots of good data and lots of money to hire talent, industry can play by its own rules and expect continued praise for its work in social science research.

Shared mission, shared effort.

That’s why a tight relationship between web companies and everyone else around social and consumer data is so critical. Oren Etzioni, founder and CEO of Decide.com and computer science professor at the University of Washington, told me during a recent conversation that the relationship between university computer science departments and industry is a “bright spot in the economy.” It’s a cycle where research begins in universities and then is carried on in commercial settings where projects can get the resources they need to flourish and become more useful.

Maybe a similarly symbiotic relationship is possible around data, even if both sides have to bend a bit. Etzioni said university researchers certainly like it when new technologies and techniques are open sourced so they use and study them, adding, however, that “where you stand [on an issue] is often influenced by where you sit.”

Feature image courtesy of Shutterstock user llin Sergey; train image courtesy of Flickr user John Spooner.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• NewNet Q4: Platform mania and social commerce shakeout
• Infrastructure Q4: Big data gets bigger and SaaS startups shine
• Dissecting the data: 5 issues for our digital future

I’ll let readers fill themselves in on the details, but the gist is that Pao is charging Kleiner with gender discrimination and retaliation, alleging that the partners in the firm excluded her from meetings and important discussions after a terminated affair with fellow partner Ajit Nazre. She is also alleging a broad atmosphere of discrimination at KP against women. It’s not my place to say whether her claims are legitimate. But that is beside the point.

Filing lawsuits against corporate behemoths isn’t easy. Alleging sexual harassment is even thornier. Pao feels strongly enough about what happened in her seven years at KP to take action that she knows will render her untouchable in the industry. Let’s be blunt (and ironic): this takes balls.

No matter what century we’re in, sexual harassment is an issue that is guaranteed to get the plaintiff a lot of nasty reprisals. The fact that Pao readily admits to sex with Nazre ups the ante on those reprisals – and how the defense will attack her in the courtroom.

Let’s be blunt about something else: someone’s finally had the nerve to stand up and say what we’ve all known for years. It is common knowledge that VC firms are one of the last bastions of boys clubs. Whether Pao specifically was excluded from meetings at KP and subjected to gifts of dirty books is still to be determined. But if she wasn’t, many other women have been, and it is for those women that Pao had to do this.

I made my own brief foray into the world of investing and, especially with a business that focused on female-led startups, I can assure you it wasn’t pretty. I still wince at the thought of one particular investor meeting, in which a smoothly flowing conversation about women entrepreneurs screeched to a halt when he asked, “Don’t you all catfight with each other?” Or the storied tech leader and investor who likes to call my company “that woman thing.”

Or the VC firm that bluntly stated they don’t want to be pigeonholed into supporting women’s ‘causes.’ Or – just one more please – the head of a large startup funding organization who told me to ‘try Meetup’ when I sought serious advice on franchising and licensing.

Women like Ellen Pao are the ones who change things for our gender as a whole. It is way past time for someone to try to make a chink in this armor. As Katie points out in her boys-club piece, out-moded views on gender are simply another way these firms are becoming dinosaurs.

I certainly don’t expect them to thank Ellen Pao for this lawsuit, but they probably should. She’s attempting to drag them into the modern age, something that must happen if they’re going to stay relevant. Kleiner Perkins is the Mount Olympus of technology venture investing. Changes that occur there will filter down into the entire industry.

But it’s especially frustrating that Pao will pay for her stance with her hard-earned career, whether she wins or not. One particular comment on the TechCrunch piece jumped out me. “Yishan Sparklepants Wong” who works at Reddit wrote:

“I doubt these are unfounded. I’ve worked with Ellen Pao and she’s not the type to complain or make frivolous allegations. In my interactions with her, she strikes me as someone who just wants to be able to work hard and get a fair deal….If you actually read the filing, the incidents go back all the way to 2006 and are quite detailed, so for much of the time it sounds like she tried to put up with it and go along.”

The men that still pull the strings of the tech industry need to take notice of this lawsuit and start making changes. Follow the model of 500 Startups, which has a bevy of female partners – and specifically seeks out women-led companies in which to invest.

Put more women on your boards, stack your tech conference’s agenda with female speakers, organize straight-talk harassment seminars in your company. Implement programs that help support women in technology, so it’s not longer as difficult to find “qualified women” for events or leadership roles. Then it’s not a matter of checking some gender boxes for your board or your conference, it’s a matter of selecting the best person who may or may not be male.

In short, Ellen Pao – and all the rest of us – want you to come out of your caves. It’s time to start evolving. As for women in tech, and in business overall, we need to support Pao vociferously. She is, in essence, taking one for the team. We should all tip our hat to her.

Carla Cook Thompson is the CEO of Sharp Skirts, a network for women who are building businesses.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How to navigate the new world of digital advertising
• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1

I’ll let readers fill themselves in on the details, but the gist is that Pao is charging Kleiner with gender discrimination and retaliation, alleging that the partners in the firm excluded her from meetings and important discussions after a terminated affair with fellow partner Ajit Nazre. She is also alleging a broad atmosphere of discrimination at KP against women. It’s not my place to say whether her claims are legitimate. But that is beside the point.

Filing lawsuits against corporate behemoths isn’t easy. Alleging sexual harassment is even thornier. Pao feels strongly enough about what happened in her seven years at KP to take action that she knows will render her untouchable in the industry. Let’s be blunt (and ironic): this takes balls.

No matter what century we’re in, sexual harassment is an issue that is guaranteed to get the plaintiff a lot of nasty reprisals. The fact that Pao readily admits to sex with Nazre ups the ante on those reprisals – and how the defense will attack her in the courtroom.

Let’s be blunt about something else: someone’s finally had the nerve to stand up and say what we’ve all known for years. It is common knowledge that VC firms are one of the last bastions of boys clubs. Whether Pao specifically was excluded from meetings at KP and subjected to gifts of dirty books is still to be determined. But if she wasn’t, many other women have been, and it is for those women that Pao had to do this.

I made my own brief foray into the world of investing and, especially with a business that focused on female-led startups, I can assure you it wasn’t pretty. I still wince at the thought of one particular investor meeting, in which a smoothly flowing conversation about women entrepreneurs screeched to a halt when he asked, “Don’t you all catfight with each other?” Or the storied tech leader and investor who likes to call my company “that woman thing.”

Or the VC firm that bluntly stated they don’t want to be pigeonholed into supporting women’s ‘causes.’ Or – just one more please – the head of a large startup funding organization who told me to ‘try Meetup’ when I sought serious advice on franchising and licensing.

Women like Ellen Pao are the ones who change things for our gender as a whole. It is way past time for someone to try to make a chink in this armor. As Katie points out in her boys-club piece, out-moded views on gender are simply another way these firms are becoming dinosaurs.

I certainly don’t expect them to thank Ellen Pao for this lawsuit, but they probably should. She’s attempting to drag them into the modern age, something that must happen if they’re going to stay relevant. Kleiner Perkins is the Mount Olympus of technology venture investing. Changes that occur there will filter down into the entire industry.

But it’s especially frustrating that Pao will pay for her stance with her hard-earned career, whether she wins or not. One particular comment on the TechCrunch piece jumped out me. “Yishan Sparklepants Wong” who works at Reddit wrote:

“I doubt these are unfounded. I’ve worked with Ellen Pao and she’s not the type to complain or make frivolous allegations. In my interactions with her, she strikes me as someone who just wants to be able to work hard and get a fair deal….If you actually read the filing, the incidents go back all the way to 2006 and are quite detailed, so for much of the time it sounds like she tried to put up with it and go along.”

The men that still pull the strings of the tech industry need to take notice of this lawsuit and start making changes. Follow the model of 500 Startups, which has a bevy of female partners – and specifically seeks out women-led companies in which to invest.

Put more women on your boards, stack your tech conference’s agenda with female speakers, organize straight-talk harassment seminars in your company. Implement programs that help support women in technology, so it’s not longer as difficult to find “qualified women” for events or leadership roles. Then it’s not a matter of checking some gender boxes for your board or your conference, it’s a matter of selecting the best person who may or may not be male.

In short, Ellen Pao – and all the rest of us – want you to come out of your caves. It’s time to start evolving. As for women in tech, and in business overall, we need to support Pao vociferously. She is, in essence, taking one for the team. We should all tip our hat to her.

Carla Cook Thompson is the CEO of Sharp Skirts, a network for women who are building businesses.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How to navigate the new world of digital advertising
• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1

The data arrived today as a new section in Google’s Transparency Report, a set of findings that show how governments — and now private actors — are removing pages from the internet.

Google’s senior copyright counsel, Fred von Lohmann, stressed in an interview that the vast majority of the takedown requests are legitimate and come in response to sites offering unauthorized copies of software, entertainment or pornography.

Here is a screenshot from the Transparency Report that shows who is ordering the take downs and which websites most commonly host  unauthorized content:

The screenshot also shows how the number of copyright requests is growing exponentially. Google did not say whether this spike is the result of an increase in piracy or instead is due to more sophisticated tools that make it easier for rights owners to detect when their content has been misappropriated. Google says it’s processing requests faster than ever and that its average response time to a takedown demand is now 11 hours.

The figures are sure to add grist to the debate about the prevalence and the reasons for online piracy. Content producers have long complained that internet companies don’t do enough to remove infringing material. On the other hand, journalists and civil libertarians have argued that copyright owners have been too aggressive in their enforcement tactics.

In a blog post on the findings, Google cites an example in which ”a major entertainment company” demanded the removal of a search result that linked to a review of a TV show despite the fact no copyright infringement had occurred. When sites are removed, Google places a notice in its search results and also forwards the information to Chilling Effects, a website run by the EFF and major universities that reports on activities that chill free speech.

But von Lohman added that requests like the one by the entertainment company are often simple errors rather than an attempt to repress criticism. He noted that Google complies with 97 percent of all requests using a combination of human and algorithmic reviews, and that the data is a validation of the current DMCA copyright regime in which internet companies are not liable for the actions of bad actors so long as they comply with notices by rights owners.

The new copyright elements of the Transparency Report may also help Google and other technology companies head off fresh attempts by Hollywood to pass legislation like the failed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).

von Lohmann didn’t elaborate on Google’s strategic reasons for releasing the information but did say it will allow policy makers to “consider the data” when evaluating copyright law.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How to navigate the new world of digital advertising
• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1

The data arrived today as a new section in Google’s Transparency Report, a set of findings that show how governments — and now private actors — are removing pages from the internet.

Google’s senior copyright counsel, Fred von Lohmann, stressed in an interview that the vast majority of the takedown requests are legitimate and come in response to sites offering unauthorized copies of software, entertainment or pornography.

Here is a screenshot from the Transparency Report that shows who is ordering the take downs and which websites most commonly host  unauthorized content:

The screenshot also shows how the number of copyright requests is growing exponentially. Google did not say whether this spike is the result of an increase in piracy or instead is due to more sophisticated tools that make it easier for rights owners to detect when their content has been misappropriated. Google says it’s processing requests faster than ever and that its average response time to a takedown demand is now 11 hours.

The figures are sure to add grist to the debate about the prevalence and the reasons for online piracy. Content producers have long complained that internet companies don’t do enough to remove infringing material. On the other hand, journalists and civil libertarians have argued that copyright owners have been too aggressive in their enforcement tactics.

In a blog post on the findings, Google cites an example in which ”a major entertainment company” demanded the removal of a search result that linked to a review of a TV show despite the fact no copyright infringement had occurred. When sites are removed, Google places a notice in its search results and also forwards the information to Chilling Effects, a website run by the EFF and major universities that reports on activities that chill free speech.

But von Lohman added that requests like the one by the entertainment company are often simple errors rather than an attempt to repress criticism. He noted that Google complies with 97 percent of all requests using a combination of human and algorithmic reviews, and that the data is a validation of the current DMCA copyright regime in which internet companies are not liable for the actions of bad actors so long as they comply with notices by rights owners.

The new copyright elements of the Transparency Report may also help Google and other technology companies head off fresh attempts by Hollywood to pass legislation like the failed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).

von Lohmann didn’t elaborate on Google’s strategic reasons for releasing the information but did say it will allow policy makers to “consider the data” when evaluating copyright law.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How to navigate the new world of digital advertising
• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1

Over the past few months, the Startup Genome project has attracted about 35,000 signups and 17,000 active business users  – and amassed a healthy amount of information — with a free data-driven benchmarking tool for startups. On Thursday, it launched a new tool that brings data analytics and startup code-cracking to investors.

Co-founder Bjoern Herrmann said Startup Genome started out as an academic project, but is evolving into something more sustainable as it attracts interest from startups and investors around the world, as well as Fortune 500 companies and other kinds of stakeholders. It recently raised a small amount of seed money from seasoned entrepreneur Steve Blank and others through Angel List.

Just as the Startup Compass tool helps entrepreneurs use data to allocate resources and align their teams and stakeholders around key decisions, Herrmann said, the new Investor Compass does the same thing for people either considering new acquisitions or monitoring current investments.

“Investors ask a lot of questions trying to understand the market better,” he said. “We make this process much easier.”

Using machine learning and artificial intelligence, it automates analyses to benchmark a startups’ key performance indicators (KPIs) against other similar companies, so investors (and startups) can see how their KPIs stack up against their peers. It also runs more than 50 red flag tests to calculate a company’s risk profile and venture fundability. The tool lets investors quickly review indicators such as customer acquisition costs, profitability timelines, team size, user growth and burn rate.

“It also provides an assessment of where the company is in the company lifecycle – one of the common problems for investors,” Herrmann said. As opposed to previous attempts to quantitatively analyze startups, he added, Startup Genome doesn’t apply traditional financial models to startups, but identifies the unique metrics that they believe are most relevant for startup success.

Right now, information in the system is fed in by the startups themselves and anonymized to protect their privacy. Investors only see individual startups’ data with permission from the company, otherwise they see benchmarks that include clusters of similar companies.

Herrmann said their plan is to increasingly automate the data collection process through APIs, starting with data from Google Analytics. In the next year, he said, they plan to build APIs that will allow startups to share data from Salesforce, Quickbooks and other applications. The new sharing mechanism will also make it easier for startups to share data with investors, who might currently ask for monthly Google docs or spreadsheets.

The founders say they don’t think entrepreneurship will ever be a “paint by the numbers” kind of activity, but they do believe that more data and science specific to startups could help more entrepreneurs identify the signals that could help them succeed.

New York-based CB Insights also tracks private companies, including startups, although it’s more focused on financing and mergers and acquisition. Hermann said Startup Genome’s dashboards can be used to track the development of a company, while CB Insights and similar research firms might be more valuable for portfolio management.

As a Kauffman Foundation report and venture capitalists like Fred Wilson have pointed out, the VC industry has not delivered returns that exceed the public market for more than a decade. More data alone isn’t the solution to the industry’s problems, but it could certainly help investors save time and potentially make smarter decisions.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A near-term outlook for big data
• Dissecting the data: 5 issues for our digital future
• What Amazon’s new Kindle line means for Apple, Netflix and online media

Over the past few months, the Startup Genome project has attracted about 35,000 signups and 17,000 active business users  – and amassed a healthy amount of information — with a free data-driven benchmarking tool for startups. On Thursday, it launched a new tool that brings data analytics and startup code-cracking to investors.

Co-founder Bjoern Herrmann said Startup Genome started out as an academic project, but is evolving into something more sustainable as it attracts interest from startups and investors around the world, as well as Fortune 500 companies and other kinds of stakeholders. It recently raised a small amount of seed money from seasoned entrepreneur Steve Blank and others through Angel List.

Just as the Startup Compass tool helps entrepreneurs use data to allocate resources and align their teams and stakeholders around key decisions, Herrmann said, the new Investor Compass does the same thing for people either considering new acquisitions or monitoring current investments.

“Investors ask a lot of questions trying to understand the market better,” he said. “We make this process much easier.”

Using machine learning and artificial intelligence, it automates analyses to benchmark a startups’ key performance indicators (KPIs) against other similar companies, so investors (and startups) can see how their KPIs stack up against their peers. It also runs more than 50 red flag tests to calculate a company’s risk profile and venture fundability. The tool lets investors quickly review indicators such as customer acquisition costs, profitability timelines, team size, user growth and burn rate.

“It also provides an assessment of where the company is in the company lifecycle – one of the common problems for investors,” Herrmann said. As opposed to previous attempts to quantitatively analyze startups, he added, Startup Genome doesn’t apply traditional financial models to startups, but identifies the unique metrics that they believe are most relevant for startup success.

Right now, information in the system is fed in by the startups themselves and anonymized to protect their privacy. Investors only see individual startups’ data with permission from the company, otherwise they see benchmarks that include clusters of similar companies.

Herrmann said their plan is to increasingly automate the data collection process through APIs, starting with data from Google Analytics. In the next year, he said, they plan to build APIs that will allow startups to share data from Salesforce, Quickbooks and other applications. The new sharing mechanism will also make it easier for startups to share data with investors, who might currently ask for monthly Google docs or spreadsheets.

The founders say they don’t think entrepreneurship will ever be a “paint by the numbers” kind of activity, but they do believe that more data and science specific to startups could help more entrepreneurs identify the signals that could help them succeed.

New York-based CB Insights also tracks private companies, including startups, although it’s more focused on financing and mergers and acquisition. Hermann said Startup Genome’s dashboards can be used to track the development of a company, while CB Insights and similar research firms might be more valuable for portfolio management.

As a Kauffman Foundation report and venture capitalists like Fred Wilson have pointed out, the VC industry has not delivered returns that exceed the public market for more than a decade. More data alone isn’t the solution to the industry’s problems, but it could certainly help investors save time and potentially make smarter decisions.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A near-term outlook for big data
• Dissecting the data: 5 issues for our digital future
• What Amazon’s new Kindle line means for Apple, Netflix and online media

I’ve heard it proposed before, but never as eloquently as by artist and computer scientist Jonathan Harris at Wednesday’s Data Science Summit in Las Vegas. Harris’s latest project is a tool about which he didn’t give specifics, but about which he did share some of his thinking. Part of that is the idea that the present is “a staging ground for the future.” We need to figure out what we want our technology to be or risk becoming beholden to it.

Broadly speaking, he said, there are two types of web platforms — healers and dealers. Healers are marketplace-type platforms such as Etsy or Amazon, or presumably Quora, that solve problems for users (e.g., I need to buy something) and then let them leave and go about their day. Dealers are attention-demanding platforms such as Facebook and Twitter that want to keep users on as long as possible so they can place as many ads in front of them as possible.

If you think the characterization of the latter group as dealers is unfair, Harris will point you to phrases and words — including the all-too-common “addictive” — that permeate discussions about new Silicon Valley web startups. That’s drug dealer talk. Facebook, he pointed out, actually uses the word “serotonin” internally to assess whether users will form tight-enough bonds with new features. (For what it’s worth, though, I’m pretty sure I know a few Etsy addicts.)

Jonathan Harris

And while he acknowledged that heavy app usage might not seem like a big problem now — it’s just a way to kill time and we can always turn off our iPads or laptops — Harris said we need to keep an eye toward the future. A decade or two from now, when he have chips implanted in our skin and nanobots fighting disease in our bloodstream, technology won’t just be something we do, but will be a part of us. What we do now at an institutional level to keep from becoming slaves to web apps could affect how we regulate our relationships with these far more-serious types of technology down the road.

I think Harris is onto something — we are being manipulated to some degree by platform developers who spend their days thinking about how to scientifically control our behavior to their benefit — although I can’t imagine what the solution might be. Harris raised the idea of an FDA-like agency for regulating web applications, but that’s neither feasible nor desirable. Not only would trying to regulate the effects of software be nearly impossible, it would also kill innovation and border on being unconstitutional. A code of ethics could work to a degree, but self-regulation and money go together like (to quote a Saturday Night Live skit that I will never forget) Hi-C and turkey.

Maybe the answer is just good, old-fashioned self-control. Individuals need to consider the consequences of their behavior and act accordingly. That seems to have worked well for drug addiction and obesity rates in America, and voters always think about the big picture come election season. Oh, never mind. I’m out of ideas (and also a little afraid of the future). Do you have any, or is app addiction not even a problem at all?

Feature image courtesy of Shutterstock user Luis Luoro; Harris photo courtesy of Jonathan Harris.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Facebook’s IPO filing: ideas and implications
• 12 tech leaders’ resolutions for 2012
• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated

I’ve heard it proposed before, but never as eloquently as by artist and computer scientist Jonathan Harris at Wednesday’s Data Science Summit in Las Vegas. Harris’s latest project is a tool about which he didn’t give specifics, but about which he did share some of his thinking. Part of that is the idea that the present is “a staging ground for the future.” We need to figure out what we want our technology to be or risk becoming beholden to it.

Broadly speaking, he said, there are two types of web platforms — healers and dealers. Healers are marketplace-type platforms such as Etsy or Amazon, or presumably Quora, that solve problems for users (e.g., I need to buy something) and then let them leave and go about their day. Dealers are attention-demanding platforms such as Facebook and Twitter that want to keep users on as long as possible so they can place as many ads in front of them as possible.

If you think the characterization of the latter group as dealers is unfair, Harris will point you to phrases and words — including the all-too-common “addictive” — that permeate discussions about new Silicon Valley web startups. That’s drug dealer talk. Facebook, he pointed out, actually uses the word “serotonin” internally to assess whether users will form tight-enough bonds with new features. (For what it’s worth, though, I’m pretty sure I know a few Etsy addicts.)

Jonathan Harris

And while he acknowledged that heavy app usage might not seem like a big problem now — it’s just a way to kill time and we can always turn off our iPads or laptops — Harris said we need to keep an eye toward the future. A decade or two from now, when he have chips implanted in our skin and nanobots fighting disease in our bloodstream, technology won’t just be something we do, but will be a part of us. What we do now at an institutional level to keep from becoming slaves to web apps could affect how we regulate our relationships with these far more-serious types of technology down the road.

I think Harris is onto something — we are being manipulated to some degree by platform developers who spend their days thinking about how to scientifically control our behavior to their benefit — although I can’t imagine what the solution might be. Harris raised the idea of an FDA-like agency for regulating web applications, but that’s neither feasible nor desirable. Not only would trying to regulate the effects of software be nearly impossible, it would also kill innovation and border on being unconstitutional. A code of ethics could work to a degree, but self-regulation and money go together like (to quote a Saturday Night Live skit that I will never forget) Hi-C and turkey.

Maybe the answer is just good, old-fashioned self-control. Individuals need to consider the consequences of their behavior and act accordingly. That seems to have worked well for drug addiction and obesity rates in America, and voters always think about the big picture come election season. Oh, never mind. I’m out of ideas (and also a little afraid of the future). Do you have any, or is app addiction not even a problem at all?

Feature image courtesy of Shutterstock user Luis Luoro; Harris photo courtesy of Jonathan Harris.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Facebook’s IPO filing: ideas and implications
• 12 tech leaders’ resolutions for 2012
• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated

To show how — dare I say it — sexy this is, the company’s latest ad shows what happens when you put a female model wearing a camisole top and shorts that are two sizes too small in front of a Smart TV. Of course this is in front of a window where everyone can see her. Hilarity and racy themes ensue. See for yourself how Samsung smartly makes good us of it’s “Look, don’t touch” tagline. Oh and be on the lookout for a previous comedic ad star: It looks like the Old Spice guy is in the mix!

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• CES 2012: a recap and analysis
• Q4 Wrap-up: SOPA and the future of digital content
• Connected Consumer 2012: A year of consolidation and integration

To show how — dare I say it — sexy this is, the company’s latest ad shows what happens when you put a female model wearing a camisole top and shorts that are two sizes too small in front of a Smart TV. Of course this is in front of a window where everyone can see her. Hilarity and racy themes ensue. See for yourself how Samsung smartly makes good us of it’s “Look, don’t touch” tagline. Oh and be on the lookout for a previous comedic ad star: It looks like the Old Spice guy is in the mix!

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• CES 2012: a recap and analysis
• Q4 Wrap-up: SOPA and the future of digital content
• Connected Consumer 2012: A year of consolidation and integration

Nvidia acquired baseband modem maker Icera only a year ago, so it’s by no means slacking off. The company has continued to sell the processor and baseband lines as separate components, and in February it revealed its first combo deal, supplying both the Tegra 2 processor and HSPA+ radio for ZTE’s new Mimosa X smartphone.

But Nvidia also missed out on some key wins as well. While it’s supplying its Tegra 3 processor for the global HSPA+ version of HTC’s new flagship phone, the One X, Nvidia was absent from the U.S. launch of the device with AT&T. Tegra simply wasn’t compatible with LTE radios. Instead, HTC went with Qualcomm’sSnapdragon S4 system on a chip (SoC), which integrates both the 3G/4G radios and the processor on the same silicon. HTC is now taking that AT&T variant global – complete with Qualcomm guts – and selling it to other LTE carriers.

In fact, Qualcomm has been landing a lot of wins for its S4 combo chip of late. It may not have yet have the quadruple cores of Nvidia’s Tegra 3, but its dual-core Krait architecture is nothing to scoff at. What’s more, Qualcomm’s integrated silicon cuts down on power consumption. That’s a key selling point for any 4G device, given LTE’s notorious battery life problems.

We’ve asked Nvidia if the validation of its LTE chip with AT&T now means its 4G support problems are over – just because it has an LTE chip doesn’t mean its processors will cooperate with it. We’ll let you know as soon as we hear back.

Update: We heard back from Nvidia. A spokesman explained that Tegra 3 can work with other vendors’ radio chipsets — it’s signed integration deals with GCT Semiconductor and Renesas Mobile – but Qualcomm’s baseband doesn’t play nice with Nvidia processors. Given that Qualcomm currently dominates the LTE radio market, Nvidia doesn’t have much competitive recourse. Getting it’s own LTE modem to market was therefore a big imperative, allowing it to challenge not only Qualcomm’s dominance in radio silicon, but clear an LTE path for its applications chips. “We’re looking forward to having Tegra 3 LTE devices in the market soon,” the spokesman said via e-mail.

If Now that Tegra is capable of playing nice with Nvidia’s own and others’ 4G modems, Nvidia will be able to sell its complete lineup in the emerging, yet quickly growing, LTE device market. That market is of vital importance because the new high-end smartphones Tegra targets are all headed in LTE’s direction – especially here in North America. To truly reach parity with Qualcomm, though, Nvidia needs to start printing Icera modems and Tegra processors on the same wafers. We’ll have to wait until next year before we see start seeing products using its first integrated chips.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• CES 2012: a recap and analysis
• LTE-Advanced: what it is and isn’t
• Updated: Forecast: global mobile subscribers, 2010–2015

I’m not a fan of the term ABI is using, but there is some recent precedent for the research firm’s sales estimates, which also include a tenfold rise in shipments this year from last. Samsung’s Galaxy Note is probably the best-known example of such a device, due to its 5.3-inch display. By the end of March, the company sold 5 million Galaxy Note handsets in just five months, with the bulk of those sales overseas. AT&T began to sell the Note with LTE support in mid February, and my review showed a capable Android device that’s large but still pocketable.

Regardless of what we call these devices or exactly what the range of screen sizes should be for them, I think ABI is on to something here. With rich media consumption on the rise on mobile devices — particularly as we get faster 4G networks and more Wi-Fi networks to supplement them — a larger display is desirable. The same can be said for Web browsing, which is one of the most popular activities on a mobile: Why scroll and zoom when a larger display minimizes such efforts?

Provided these handsets are still pocketable, consumers will adopt them because they combine the portability of a smartphone with the more immersive experience found in a tablet. That’s not to say 10-inch slate sales will fall; these fit a totally different use case for most, as they are less portable and are better suited for casual computing or consumption in a given location. A recent Viacom study, for example, found that 74 percent of tablet use is in the home.

As far as the definition of a “phablet,” I think ABI is spot-on with the screen size. Why? This gets back to the key question I suggested people ask themselves with regards to the Galaxy Note’s size: Are you a one-handed or two-handed smartphone user? Screens this large will require many to use two hands for typing and navigation, much like a tablet. I have always been a two-handed smartphone user, so the Note and my 4.65-inch Galaxy Nexus work perfectly for me. But if you’re set on one-handed smartphone use, these aren’t the devices for you, as I illustrate here:

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Updated: Forecast: global mobile subscribers, 2010–2015
• Tablet market to hit over 377 million units by 2016
• CES 2012: a recap and analysis

“Operators treat partners like vendors.” That quote comes form Google director of global Android partnerships John Lagerling, who said it during a panel discussion this week at Management World in Dublin, where it was captured by Light Reading. It’s a telling statement, especially coming from one of the most important players in the mobile industry.

Several years ago, operators could have gotten away with treating everyone else in the mobile ecosystem as a mere supplier. After all, they ran the whole show. If your service, device or technology was ever going to make it onto an operator’s network, you had to kiss the ring. A lot has changed in a few years.

These days, Google and Apple have far more clout in the global wireless industry than any individual carrier. Apple’s decisions on which radio technologies to support can cause seismic shifts in the industry. And any new iteration of the Android OS can spur new waves of new service innovation and app development. That’s power that no single operator has ever held.

The mobile industry has evolved, but if Lagerling is speaking the truth, then the carriers haven’t evolved with it. That Bellhead, old-school telco mindset was in evidence at the U.S. mobile industry’s biggest show, CTIA Wireless. The show has been suffering for several years and I believe the main cause for its slow demise is its stubborn focus on carriers. The show simply hasn’t embraced the new reality.

To be fair, the disdain runs both ways. Most over-the-top (OTT) app developers view the operators as mere dumb pipes, which isn’t going to ingratiate with them Verizon and AT&T anytime soon. I’ve heard developers lament the loss of unlimited data plans like old hippies pining for the Summer of Love. Mobile carriers may be treating developers and platform providers like mere vendors supplying the nuts and bolts of their services, but the developers are treating operators like mere utilities into which they plug their apps.

The thing is carriers need developers a lot more than developers need the carriers. And the carriers know it. Wireless analyst Chetan Sharma sums up their conundrum quite eloquently in his latest U.S. market update:

We are at a critical juncture of the industry evolution. The OTT phenomenon is shifting the tectonic plates at a rapid pace. What seemed like a minor irritant only a few quarters back is become a nuisance virus that is eating away the core. Some operators have gone into panic mode while others have stepped back, assessed the situation, embraced it, and will try to exploit the opportunity. The truth of the matter is that the two biggest apps – voice and messaging didn’t really evolve a period of two decades. When the last big invention was interoperability and that too a decade ago, you know things are ripe for disruption. Thanks to the availability of always-on IP networks, new and nimble players are pushing the boundaries of what’s possible.

Operators are now floating the idea of OTT providers fronting the costs of delivering their traffic over mobile broadband networks. (We may even see the first instance of it in the coming weeks from Verizon.) The operators are talking about revenue sharing, and “sharing” implies a partnership of equals.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1
• Hyperlocal: opportunities for publishers and developers

Pike Research predicts that there will be 10 trends that shape this growing market over the next decade, like that they think building automation systems will shift over to using Internet Protocol as their basic standard, away from more conflicting and proprietary communication standards. Here’s Pike’s 10 predictions for the smart building market:

1). Cloud: These building energy management systems will largely live in the cloud. It might sound obvious, but for the older-school building industry it’s been revolutionary.

2). Partnerships: The vendors that offer building energy management systems right now are pretty fragmented. Some of the larger players are trying to provide end-to-end systems, and then there’s the startups that have new, novel ideas. Partnerships are emerging as a key way to grow the market.

3). M&A: On that note, large companies buying small ones is a major trend. See the list at the bottom.

4). China: Yeah we know China always seems to land on any of these lists, but it’s going to be a massive driver of growth. It’s building a lot of new commercial and factory building space and will provide itself on including the latest smart building tech.

5). Federal friends: The U.S federal government has emerged as a major customer and partner for companies offering energy services.

6). Standards shake out: The multitude of protocols are converging, but eventually everything will go to IP.

7). No more manual demand response: Demand response — the act of shifting energy consumption at a certain time when more energy is needed — is going all automatic. Previously much of this was done manually, but finally the service is entering the modern digital world.

8). Submeters! If you don’t know what submeters are, check ‘em out. Pike says they’ll be big one day.

9). Design from the ground up: Building information systems aren’t just shaping how buildings run, but they’re remaking how buildings are designed, too.

10). We are all one: The smart building is the smart grid, and vice versa.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A near-term outlook for big data
• Dissecting the data: 5 issues for our digital future
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution

Credit: Bowen Liu/Apple Inc. via Bloomberg

The biggest challenge for Apple over the next several years will be how it adjusts under the leadership of Tim Cook. We’ve seen bits and pieces of what this new era means for Apple, but Fortune writer Adam Lashinsky has a cover story on Thursday that pulls it all together and is chock-full of fascinating details about how Apple is changing with him at the helm.

We’ve deviated from our usual roundup of must-read Apple coverage to highlight the story by Lashinsky, who wrote a book last year called Inside Apple. Here are the five most interesting details from the story that any Apple watcher should take note of:

• Wall Street loves Cook. Not only has the stock skyrocketed since Cook took over as permanent CEO in August, but he has given investors their long-awaited dividend, and he actually, like, talks to investors. And they love him for all of those things. Said one Goldman Sachs analyst: “By any quantitative measure, so far his performance is phenomenal.”
• Cook has embraced corporate types. He’s brought in a lot of MBA-toting new employees to Apple. And it’s not a real surprise, given his background as COO, that he’s emphasizing operational efficiency. But some are starting to wonder if efficiency is becoming more of a priority compared to engineering creativity. One former long-time Apple engineer is quoted as saying, “It looks like it has become a more conservative execution engine rather than a pushing-the-envelope engineering engine.”
• He’s a communicator. He was recently photographed meeting with Speaker John Boehner in Washington, D.C. But Lashinsky reports that he told several high-ranking politicians that he wanted to be “personally accessible to them.” The same seems to be true of his employees — he’ll randomly sit down to lunch with them at the Cupertino campus’s cafeteria — and his partners — he personally visited a Foxconn plant in the aftermath of the public outcry over working conditions there.
• He is not scary. Siri isn’t a finished product and has understandably had bugs. That would not have gone over well were Steve Jobs around, notes one employee. And whereas in the Jobs era employees feared him, some Apple employees now seem a little more relaxed, as he tells in one anecdote about an engineer who didn’t feel like he had to rush back to work right after lunch anymore. And the annual retreat for the company’s 100 best performers was actually considered fun this year and not as stressful as it had been under Jobs.
• He is shepherding the creation of new products that employees like. At the top performers retreat, those in attendance got a look at future products. One veteran executive was “blown away” while others “came away totally comfortable with where the company is headed.”

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Flash analysis: Steve Jobs
• Forecast: Tablet App Sales To Hit $8B by 2015
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1

I was leery when I heard the news about Axis, mainly because Yahoo’s mobile strategy has arguably been second-rate by comparison to Apple, Google, and Microsoft. Then I took Axis for a spin on my iPhone and I was pleasantly surprised. In my opinion, Yahoo has accomplished its stated goals with Axis, and its peers could learn something from the venerable search company.

First, I’m very impressed with the user interface implemented in Axis. It’s simple and fast to use once you understand it. Essentially, the browser has a number of sliding panes — both horizontally and vertically — that you swipe to get around the web.

You start out with an address bar that’s also a search field and results begin to appear immediately. Swiping left to right shows more results, which are essentially thumbnails of visual information; far richer than just text results. Tap a thumbnail and a bottom panel rises, showing the a web page. Bookmarks are available with a right to left swipe (or a tap) of a small ribbon icon. Tap an icon on the bottom of the browser and thumbnails of open tabs appear for your to navigate through or view.

The entire UI is seamless and very focused on swiping as opposed to tapping. Yahoo clearly spent time figuring out the best way to take advantage of the touchscreens found on today’s smartphones, and the effort shows. Although geared for mobile devices, I really like how Axis allows you to switch views optimized for iPhone, iPad and desktops from within the settings. I never expected to say this, but Google, Microsoft and even Apple could learn from Yahoo’s UI approach here. That’s debatable and open to personal opinion of course, but I really like what Yahoo did here.

How much will Axis matter in the grand scheme of things? Probably not too much because even with the well designed user interface, I don’t expect a significant number of iOS device users to switch browsers. Some might use Axis — or Opera, Dolphin HD or another third-party browser — on occasion, but since all links in iOS open Safari, few will likely bother to open up Axis on a regular basis. That’s a shame because Yahoo has delivered a solid browser for mobile devices in Axis.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A look back at mobile in Q1
• Facebook’s IPO filing: ideas and implications
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution