If you don't know who PewDiePie is, that is alright. Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg is a YouTube star, whose channel has the largest subscriber count at 53 million subscribers and generated him an estimated $15 million in 2016. He has managed to accomplish this by consistently being surprising. He started off as a gaming channel and later began to fancy himself a comedian, and the content began to change.
One of his go-to concepts is shock value. The thing he seems to find both shocking and funny is anti-Semitic content. While these types of "jokes" have been accepted for other content creators, such as
South Park, Kjellberg's latest video did not. The difference was in what the actual content was. He paid someone to hold up a sign that read, "DEATH TO ALL JEWS." The world did not respond to it as he had hoped, and he blames everyone else for that "problem."
Rather than saying he was sorry for creating something that offended a lot of people, he blamed the media for reporting on the negative response the video received. Of course it could not possibly be the fault of the person who created the concept, filmed the video and then published it to the world - the reason it didn't go well is because someone else noticed that it was offensive content.
I truly believe these articles slamming people like me for these topics, they're doing more harm than good. They're doing more harm than I'm doing by saying them. I think being the political correctness police is essentially just going to fuck us all over, and this year, 2017 I decided I'm taking a stance back, I'm going to be true to myself. I want to do the sense of humor that I enjoy, and this is the price for it, I'm fine with that.
While I do agree that the "PC Police" are creating an environment in which everyone is encouraged to be offended by something, there are still some things that are actually offensive, such as calling for the extermination of a people who have faced that exact fate more than once in their history, and are facing a new version of it today. Some things simply are not funny, and this is one of them. In 2016, he took a different stand on content, however, saying,
I still make kinda stupid jokes that I shouldn't make. But I feel like back then I didn't understand. I was so immature and I just thought things were funny just because they were offensive. So I would say a lot of stupid shit. I'm not proud of it. I'm really not. But I'm also glad that I've grown past it.
It makes you wonder what has changed, and why he feels that being offensive is his true self in 2017. The price he is mentioning in the first quote, however, is incredibly high. The PewDiePie channel has had two major partnerships which led to his financial windfall in 2016: YouTube itself, which is owned by Google, and MakerStudio, which is owned by Disney. Both of those partnerships came to an end this week after the video was published. MakerStudio released a statement about the termination, saying,
Although Felix has created a following by being provocative and irreverent, he clearly went too far in this case. The resulting videos are inappropriate.
YouTube issued a statement about canceling Felix's YouTube Red series, which is produced by
The Walking Dead's Robert Kirkman, saying,
We've decided to cancel the release of Scare PewDiePie season 2 and we're removing the PewDiePie channel from Google Preferred.
All 3 of these changes are going to take PewDiePie from being a YouTube star to being an internet unknown. Removal from Preferred will mean new people will be less likely to encounter new content, and cancelation of his promoted content will end his financial successes. However, no matter what he says, this is his fault, not yours or the media's. He created controversial content, knew it was controversial and now must pay the price for the reaction. No one is responsible for paying for your mistakes but you, a lesson that is going to be incredibly expensive for Felix.
The future of Google Fiber has been in question for about 6 months. In August of last year, the company began the process of
scaling down their operations, followed nearly immediately by pausing new rollouts entirely in October. This week, Alphabet is transitioning hundreds of employees from Access, the division responsible for Google Fiber, to other areas within the company.
Nothing signals a major restructure like moving employees out of a division. The idea of fiber-to-the-door was always an expensive and unrealistic one. The cost of petitioning access to easements from cities is enough for most companies, essentially
wiping out an existing telecom from the market. Once the backbone is in-place, it is also expensive to run the fiber from the pipe to the premises and then convert existing internal infrastructure, all for internet speeds that nearly no one actually needs.
The question is, then, "What is going to happen with the brand?" As I have predicted before, the future for Access is wireless rather than fiber. The company
purchased Webpass in 2016, and will use their existing technology and infrastructure to continue their high speed internet access roll-out. Combined with Google's balloon-based internet service concept, they could potentially cover an entire city with internet quicker, easier and less expensive than laying cables.
This will require that Access gain more wireless spectrum to make this possible. It also, currently, requires whole buildings to convert to the network, as Webpass will not install their antennas and hardware on a single-tenant property. Unless that changes, people who live in houses will still not be able to switch, and neither will people within buildings who are unwilling to convert entirely. Without an operational change, the whole business model and consumer target for Access will change dramatically, though not entirely negatively.
Right now, for better or worse, the majority of the tech industry is focused on, and excited about, virtual reality. Even our
CES coverage couldn't avoid it this year. With that said, one of the companies who should be the most optimistic about the technology is taking a decidedly different, and characteristically unusual, approach: Valve.
Gabe Newell, CEO of Valve, is known for big, unfounded statements about the success, or lack of success, of certain products and platforms. He famously said that Windows 8 "isn't for gamers," a statement that turned out to be far from true. You would expect then, that he would have a very optimistic view of VR, considering the HTC Vive, a partnership with Valve, is arguably the best VR headset currently available. In a unique sit-down conversation, he said,
We're optimistic. We think VR is going great. It's going in a way that's consistent with our expectations... We're also pretty comfortable with the idea that it will turn out to be a complete failure.
Some people have got attention by going out and saying there'll be millions of (VR unit sales) and we're like, wow, I don't think so.
For the first time, potentially in history, I have to agree completely with Gabe. I believe that VR is going to be the next 3D TV - a technology that is splashy and popular for a while, but will fade to the background with time. There are two current issues that are preventing the technology form succeeding. First is the cost of entry for real, PC-based VR. Second, as I have maintained, is a lack of quality content. The majority of VR content on the market is so-so at best. Gabe, as it turns out, agrees,
I can't point to a single piece of content that would cause millions of people to justify changing their home computing... If you took the existing VR systems and made them 80 percent cheaper, that's still not a huge market. There's still not a really incredibly compelling reason for people to spend 20 hours a day in VR... There's an old joke that premature cost reduction is the root of all evil.
It will be interesting to see if this new revelation is the beginning of a change within Valve in regards to VR. There are really only 2 places for VR content today: Valve's Steam VR and Oculus, and a potential dismissal of the technology by Valve could open the door for another player, including Microsoft's incoming partner VR headsets, to rule the space.
Over the past 7 years, one of the stories that just won't die is the possible partnership between T-Mobile and Sprint. In 2010, T-Mobile
considered a technology switch, from their existing GSM platform to WiMAX for 4G. They were in talks with Clearwire, the company that was partially-owned by Sprint, and provided Sprint's WiMAX network. At the time, it was suggested that the move would have been intended to make it easier for Sprint and T-Mobile to become one network. In 2013, after acquiring Sprint, SoftBank opened discussions for T-Mobile.
Those discussions ultimately broke down because of the FCC, but not because the parties were uninterested. Today, the environment at the FCC is far less negative than it was 4 years ago, and SoftBank has begun reconsidering their offer. Unfortunately for them, Deutsche Telekom is no longer interested in relinquishing control of T-Mobile, so SoftBank has a new strategy. Instead of offering them a buyout to go away, SoftBank is considering offering them part of Sprint, making the two partners.
As of today, no official offer has been made, nor have any conversations been had of any sort. It turns out that is against federal regulations for participants in an ongoing spectrum auction to have any official contact. That means that SoftBank has through April to put their thoughts together before approaching Deutsche Telekom.
The issue at hand, though, is could a merger between the two networks be a success? Sprint is no stranger to cross-technology mergers, having purchased Nextel in 2005. Sprint used CDMA technology, while Nextel used iDEN technology, which were technologically incompatible. Nextel's fate was a complete shutdown of the iDEN network in 2013. Today, Sprint continues to use CDMA for its voice network and LTE (GSM) for its 4G data network. T-Mobile uses GSM voice and data technologies, leaving the proposed company with 3 different technologies to work with.
Some sort of overall purge would be necessary for the group. Likely, Sprint's CDMA technology would be the technological victim, giving Sprint the ability to bring unlocked devices GSM devices to their customers, as well as a larger variety of phones, which would be a welcomed addition. There would also need to be a brand purge, however. Within the proposed group would be: T-Mobile, Sprint, MetroPCS, Virgin Mobile USA and Boost Mobile.
Obviously, everything is conjecture at this point, as the two companies are not even permitted to discuss the idea until April, but this is a fascinating twist to a nearly decades-old story.
Unless you're Taylor Swift, most modern musicians have their music available on streaming services. It's a move that makes sense as most consumers seem to be using the streaming model versus the purchase model to listen to music. One artist who made the decision not to participate in streaming is the late Prince.
In 2015, he removed all of his music from streaming services except for
struggling service Tidal. He wasn't the only artist to pull music from other services and focus exclusively on Tidal, though he is probably the only one who never went back. While Prince took a decidedly standoffish approach to music streaming, his estate has a very different view. In fact, as of today, Prince's music is officially available on streaming services again.
This move by the estate, which owes a tremendous amount in taxes, will bring back the question of art versus profit. Obviously, Prince believed that the art deserved certain recognition. In fact, he famously sent cease-and-desist letters to websites that featured Prince-inspired personal tattoos or photos. On the other hand, the estate, which owes upwards of $100 million in estate taxes, needs the revenue to be able to pay the estate taxes on what he left when he died.
Taylor Swift has always argued that streaming music was
insulting to the artists because of the royalties that are received versus the income received from the sale of an album.
All I can say is that music is changing so quickly, and the landscape of the music industry itself is changing so quickly, that everything new, like Spotify, all feels to me a bit like a grand experiment. And I'm not willing to contribute my life's work to an experiment that I don't feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music. And I just don't agree with perpetuating the perception that music has no value and should be free.
Well, while that's not exactly an art versus profit argument, it does play in that same arena. While, many fans have asked why the estate is making these types of deals which Prince would not have agreed to, it will be interesting to see if fans will still stream his music.