FocuSoft Tech Blog

Broadcom halts efforts to buy Emulex
The webcasting deal: What took so long?
Beatles Twist and Shout Played with iPhones
Fifth Gear: Lotus Evora
Spy Shots: Google Chrome OS
Epson, 3M Debut 0.3mm-thick Virtual Model
eBay Watch: Jet AirCar Prototype
World’s Largest R/C Helicopter
Fire Bell Alarm Clock Sounds Just Like the Real Thing
Incredible Chrome Engine 4 Tech Demo

Posted: 09 Jul 2009 09:23 AM PDT

The chase is over. After Emulex rejected Broadcom’s $912 million offer, its suitor today called off the hostile buyout effort.

Broadcom Chief Executive Scott McGregor, who only two weeks ago sweetened his bid 20% from $764 million, said his Irvine network equipment company will now pursue “other value-creating alternatives.” The company said it would not renew its offer when the offer expires July 14.

The announcement ends a contentious process marked by lawsuits lobbed by both Orange County companies. Broadcom initially had sued to invalidate an Emulex poison pill designed to ward off hostile takeovers. Emulex, based in Costa Mesa, countered with a lawsuit charging that the antics of former Broadcom chief executive Henry Nicholas made the company untrustworthy.

Nicholas, who is no longer involved in Irvine company he founded, is awaiting criminal prosecution on two federal indictments, one on a stock backdating charge and another alleging he had supplied narcotics to acquaintances.

– Alex Pham

Follow my random thoughts on games, gear and technology on Twitter @AlexPham.

[via LATimes.com]

The webcasting deal: What took so long?

Posted: 08 Jul 2009 08:36 PM PDT

How high were the webcasting royalties set by a federal copyright board more than two years ago? So high that the bacon-saving discountannounced Tuesday for “pureplay” webcasters will still require large ones to pay at least25% of their revenues to SoundExchange, the agency that represents labels and performing artists. Techdirt’s Mike Masnick also notes that the deal calls for a minimum annual fee of $25,000– not exactly chump change. Nevertheless, webcaster Kurt Hanson hailed the agreement, saying that the rates imposed by the Copyright Royalty Board “would almost certainly have been a death warrant — they were the [equivalent] of 70%, 100%, or even more of some webcasters' total revenues.”

Those percentages seem outrageous, but consider this: The royalty set by the CRB for 2009 amounted to 2.7 cents per listener per hour of music streamed. The fact that such a fee would amount to 70% or more of a webcaster’s income shows how little these companies have been able to generate from advertisers. The picture has actually worsened for webcasters this year as advertisers cut their spending online and off, strengthening the companies’ argument for a discount.

If the numbers were so stark, why did it take a virtual eternity for webcasters and the music industry to agree on a model that seems sustainable? I’d blame four things:

An arbitration process that discouraged the two sides from bargaining. Under federal copyright law, webcasters have the right to play songs online (subject to some irritating limits on playlists and customization), but the royalty rate is set by mutual consent. If the sides can’t agree, a federal panel sets the rate. But the mere existence of the panel made webcasters and SoundExchange reluctant to strike deals, for fear of sacrificing too much and having the panel apply those terms to the entire field.
The webcasters’ belief that Congress would save them by passing something like the Internet Radio Equality Act. It wasn’t as quixotic as it sounds — that’s what happened in 2002, after the Copyright Office imposed the initial royalty rates for online broadcasters.
The wide range of webcasting businesses, which hindered agreement on a percentage-of-revenue model. One often-repeated argument coming out of the SoundExchange camp was that some webcasters were Internet powerhouses. But companies such as Yahoo and AOL weren’t making boatloads of money off their webcasts — they had many other sources of revenue, and they wanted the royalty calculation to be based just on the revenue directly attributable to their music streams. (Both companies, by the way, turned over much of their webcasting businesslast year to a major over-the-air radio chain, CBS.) SoundExchange naturally resisted that argument, arguing that it would encourage companies to cross-subsidize their webcasting operations and run fewer ads in their streams. Significantly, the deal announced Tuesday doesn’t apply to multifaceted operations — it’s for companies that do webcasting and nothing else.
The copyright holders’ interest in maximizing the amount of revenue, not maximizing the number of webcasters. Major labels and performing artists weren’t offended by the prospect of high rates driving struggling websites out of business. They wanted listeners to go to sites that were capable of generating significant royalty payments. The webcasters, meanwhile, were struggling to line up advertisers and attract listeners, who had (and have) an ever-increasing number of alternative sources of free music. Over the months of negotiations, SoundExchange agreed to establish several tiers of discounts for hobbyists and small commercial webcasters, with audience caps and limits on songs streamed. The latest deal has tiers too, offering webcasters with less than $1.25 million in revenue the ability to pay 10% to 14% of revenue or 7% of expenses, whichever is greater. “There was certainly concern on our side that many, many small services might erode audience from services who really were trying to make a business work,” SoundExchange Executive Director John Simson said in an e-mail.

SoundExchange also agreed to cut the per-song royalties by about 50% for non-subscription webcasters in the new deal. But the more significant step forward is its willingness to accept a percentage of revenue even from popular webcasters, albeit a higher one than it collects from satellite radio services. (That’s another thing webcasters find galling: how much more they pay, in percentage terms, than their competitors. On the other hand, their business models and costs are quite different.) Such arrangements aligns the interests of webcasters, labels and performers far better than per-song royalties do. But it’s worth remembering that SoundExchange characterized the new deal as “experimental,” signifying its hesitation to commit to a percentage-of-revenue model. Considering how well such an arrangement has worked for music publishers and conventional radio stations, I’m betting labels and performers will grow comfortable with it as well.

– Jon Healey

Healey writes editorials for The Times’ Opinion Manufacturing Division.

[via LATimes.com]

Beatles Twist and Shout Played with iPhones

Posted: 08 Jul 2009 07:00 PM PDT

MacRumors user Guiz DP used only iPhones to recreate the classic Beatles hit, Twist and Shout. To be more specific, he used the following apps: “Kanondrum Bass: Bassist by Moocow guitars: iShred by Frontier Design.” Video after the break.

Fifth Gear: Lotus Evora

Posted: 08 Jul 2009 06:59 PM PDT

In this Fifth Gear segment, Tiff Needell “test drives the new Lotus Evora on the track and even manages to squeeze two lycra clad gymnasts on the back seats to prove it’s a 2+2.” Video after the break.

Go here to read the rest:
Fifth Gear: Lotus Evora

Spy Shots: Google Chrome OS

Posted: 08 Jul 2009 05:07 PM PDT

Could these be the first pictures of Google Chrome OS? These spy shots apparently came from an Acer employee who was “privy to a brief demonstration of a Private Developer Beta.” Click here for first picture in gallery.

They showed a full installation, which took about 10 minutes. After installation was done, desktop to desktop reboot took about 25 seconds.

[via Gizmodo]

View post:
Spy Shots: Google Chrome OS

Epson, 3M Debut 0.3mm-thick Virtual Model

Posted: 08 Jul 2009 05:06 PM PDT

Epson has partnered with 3M to develop a new marketing platform for retailers. Simply put, “Epson’s rear-projection technology with 3M’s 0.3-mm thin Vikuiti film to project talking avatars onto to shop windows.” Video after the break.

[via Engadget - Watch.impress]

eBay Watch: Jet AirCar Prototype

Posted: 08 Jul 2009 05:05 PM PDT

Currently at $565 on eBay, this Jet AirCar Prototype “was designed and built by Superior Areo Designs as a whimsical tribute to the concept of the flying car, or the roadable airplane.” Auction page. Click here for first picture in gallery.

Maximum taxi speed with the wings up is 35mph and 15mph with them in the down position. It is street legal in Illinois with the wings folded, 10ft high and less than 8 ft wide. Attaching the wing assembly takes about 30 minutes.

[via eBay]

More here:
eBay Watch: Jet AirCar Prototype

World’s Largest R/C Helicopter

Posted: 08 Jul 2009 05:04 PM PDT

Modeled after the Russian Mil Mi-24, this 1/8 scale remote-controlled helicopter is touted as the world’s largest, measuring 5-feet in length — thanks mason! Video after the break.

We don’t really know anything about the giant “toy” helicopter, except the model it’s based on, but the video below shows that it really work.

[via Gizmodo]

More:
World’s Largest R/C Helicopter

Fire Bell Alarm Clock Sounds Just Like the Real Thing

Posted: 08 Jul 2009 05:03 PM PDT

The Fire Bell Alarm Clock from Vat19 “has two jobs in life: 1) To look like the kind of awesome alarm clock that Ivan Drago would keep by his bed and 2) To wake you up.” Product page. Video after the break.

However, if anyone could withstand this clock’s assault, it would be “The Russian” from Rocky IV. The Fire Bell Alarm Clock features a snooze function as well as easy-to-use controls.

[via Vat19]

View original here:
Fire Bell Alarm Clock Sounds Just Like the Real Thing

Incredible Chrome Engine 4 Tech Demo

Posted: 08 Jul 2009 05:02 PM PDT

Chrome Engine 4, a 3D game engine, is the result of 9-years of development. This latest version now supports Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, and Xbox 360 platforms. Continue reading to watch a tech demo.

The rest is here:
Incredible Chrome Engine 4 Tech Demo