The Future of Your Wireless Home Network

David Henry is a senior director of product marketing for NETGEAR where he works on high performance, dependable and easy home networking, storage and digital media products to connect people with the Internet and their content and devices. You can follow NETGEAR on Twitter @NETGEAR.

The future of home networking will see multiple devices connected to the Internet and to each other. At the 2011 Consumer Electronics Show (CES), the emphasis was on Internet-enabled everything. Recent market studies also confirm this trend. The penetration of connected consumer electronic devices such as TVs, Blu-ray players, and smartphones are projected to grow 400% between 2010 and 2015, as shown in the chart below.

The introduction of so many new tablets is another indication that the demand for connected consumer electronics is surging. Consumer expectations about the quality of their connectivity is increasing as more and more of the devices are used for entertainment such as streaming movies or online gaming.

As these connected devices become part of future homes, home networking products will have to be ready to support them, with new features that enable the best possible experience.

Powerful routers, home gateways, centralized media servers, powerline network adapters, and wireless add-ons like Wi-Fi range-extenders will soon become the norm for the connected home. The future home network will have to be smart enough to adapt to changing priorities, dedicate more bandwidth to certain activities and switch between devices readily.

When looking for an interruption-free Internet experience in the home, consumers should keep an eye out for a router with dual band. These routers provide the kind of bandwidth required by the devices connecting to the home network and Internet. Dual band functionality provides twice the Wi-Fi bandwidth, giving the consumer two completely separate wireless networks within the home. The most used frequency is 2.4GHz, as it is ideal to support web surfing, e-mail and chat. However, having another band to select from (the 5GHz band) enables better video streaming. Fewer devices connecting on this band avoids wireless congestion and renders video streaming without jitters and lags. Consumers should look for this dual band capability from their wireless router at home especially if they are streaming video from sites like Netflix, YouTube or Hulu. Some dual band wireless routers even come with a special “Video Mode” that not only makes it easier to set up wireless for this type of video streaming but also uses video-centric algorithms that reduce video jitter and frame loss during streaming.

Built-in Quality of Service (QoS) is another feature being integrated in modern wireless routers. This feature allows prioritization of devices to deliver maximum Internet bandwidth and performance. This prioritization allows the dedication of more bandwidth to HD movies for flawless viewing. Once the priority is set in the router, the router recognizes the type of Internet traffic and prioritizes it, automatically. Some modern wireless routers come with the most popular applications already set up, auto-assigning priority to activities such as voice calls versus web surfing, e-mail or downloads.

The growth of high quality HD-video streaming is just one of the many reasons consumers need to understand the crucial role their home wireless router plays. As the number of activities occurring over wireless increase, better performance will be required from home Wi-Fi connections. Fortunately, home networking companies are rolling out the features that ensure high quality video streaming and other Wi-Fi activities almost daily.

By 2015, the average bandwidth to the home from DSL, cable, or wireless providers will grow exponentially. Consumers will continue to enjoy video content on various sized screens including flawless streaming to handheld devices. CDs, DVDs and Blu-Ray Discs will be used mostly by those who cherish physical media. However, streaming video from the Internet and from home media servers will more likely become the norm.

Consumers can see this trend today in the modern network attached storage (NAS) device that supports media serving capabilities. Advanced wireless routers have media servers built in, and have the ability to stream and share media stored on any connected external USB hard drive. As customers wish to have instant access to all of their media all of the time, whether at home or on smartphones and tablets, NAS devices and wireless routers need to support remote access. The most advanced NAS products today support this “anytime, anywhere” type of access as do advanced consumer wireless routers.

Home control and security monitoring will also be accessible from any Internet connection, and manageable from a smartphone, PC or tablet.

In today’s modern home, consumers are already seeing the growing trend of everything being connected to the Internet. In many cases, the amount of Internet-connected devices in the home outnumber the people in the household. This means more and more is demanded from home wireless networks and Internet connections. Thankfully, home networking companies are answering the call by innovating new wireless solutions and home router features that facilitate the connected entertainment experience people expect.

- 4 Predictions for Connected Devices in 2011
- 5 Predictions for Online Data in 2011
- Constantly Changing Technologies: What’s a Software Developer To Do?
- Tough Tech: 10 Rugged Gadgets That Will Go the Distance
- 5 Predictions for Game Mechanics in 2011

Image courtesy of iStockphoto, alengo

View the original article here

Keen On… Anthony Wood: The Inventor of Personal Video Recorder on the Future of TV (TCTV)

Meet the man who killed the television industry. In the mid Nineties, while he was looking at a Fry’s ad, Anthony Wood invented the personal video recorder (PVR). From this epiphany, Wood founded ReplayTV in 1997, a PVR company which, for a short while, gave TiVO a run for its money.

But Wood not only invented the PVR, he also helped kill it. In 2002, after leaving ReplayTV, Wood founded Roku, a self-styled “cable killer” hardware company which provides a box for accessing on-demand video.

Almost ten years after founding Roku, Wood really is starting to scare the traditional cable industry. He’s already sold a million Roku boxes and streamed a billion minutes of content from Roku devices. And this year, Wood expects to sell a million and a half boxes, thus making Roku, Wood says, the 10th largest cable company in the US.

And that’s just the beginning. Wood’s goal is to control video access to the world – to be the “one box that rules them all.” The $100 billion question, however, is whether Roku can compete with Google and Apple when these giants really focus on refining the hardware that links the Internet with our screens.

So, will Roku, like ReplayTV, be a footnote to 21st century video content, or can it really be the box that rules them all?

How Wood invented the PVR while looking at a Fry’s ad

Why Roku is a cable killer

Will Apple kill Roku?

Why social TV won’t work

View the original article here

Nissan’s Electric Sports Car of the Future Debuts Next Month [PICS]

Three months after Nissan rolled out its Leaf electric car, it’ll be showing off ESFLOW, a more-powerful electric sports car that can travel 150 miles before it needs recharging.

Propelled by a separate electric motor on each of its rear wheels, the Nissan ESFLOW is a two-seater that can zip from 0 to 60 MPH in less than 5 seconds. It debuts next month at the International Motorshow in Geneva, the same venue where that spectacular Pagani C9 Huayra car we showed you last weekend will roll out.

Even though the ESFLOW is designed from scratch according to GizMag, it’ll use key components from the Nissan Leaf, such as its lithium-ion battery packs. Price wasn’t mentioned, however, the Nissan Leaf lists for $32,780, and this sportier Nissan will have a lighter and more expensive body made of aluminum and composite materials, driving its price higher.

There’s more exotica, including brake and gas pedals that adjust electronically to fit each driver, fly-by-wire steering and video cameras and screens instead of rear-view mirrors. Add up all these features, and the result is not going to be a cheap car. Like most concept cars, the ESFLOW is an ambitious design, but Nissan says it’s a “production-ready” vehicle.

We’re thinking it looks a lot like the Chevy Volt when it was a concept car, which became much more conventional by the time it reached an actual assembly line.

How do you like ESFLOW, readers? Does its styling beat a Tesla Roadster? Would you be willing to put up with a range of 150 miles so you could drive this little pocket electro-rocket?

View the original article here

Rob Glaser: Silicon Valley’s Bright Future

I have a lot of respect for Scott McNealy. Scott did a terrific job running Sun for many years. Sun is one of the 25 greatest companies started over the past 30 years, and the company had a hell of a run by almost any measure.

But I don’t buy Scott’s concerns about the future of Silicon Valley. Indeed, I think he got it 95% wrong. While I live in Seattle, over the past year I’ve spent a lot of time in Silicon Valley — helping to start one Valley company, investing in 2 others, and looking closely at a couple dozen more. My take is that Silicon Valley, and the U.S. tech scene in general, is more vibrant, exciting, and laden with big opportunities than at any time in my 30 years in the business.

First, the 5% where Scott’s right: When he says the valley “ain’t what it used to be,” he’s absolutely right. Nowadays, everything in the Valley — and in U.S. InfoTech in general — is software-driven. That doesn’t mean that hardware is dead – there’s plenty of Valley innovation in chips (e.g. Arm and Apple A4), Computers (e.g. the iPad), and other physical products. It’s just that winning products nowadays are fundamentally great software wrapped in either great hardware, or good & cheap hardware. In the past, it was possible to win big in hardware in the U.S., without being great at software, but no more. So yes, that’s a big change that has lots of implications.

But the 95% that’s wrong is when Scott seems to suggest that all of the opportunity in the Valley is focused around Social Networking (or unsustainable Government-funded Greentech). This is wrong in 2 fundamental ways:

First, it ignores many *huge* sectors where the Valley is thriving and indeed taking the lead in value creation away from other territories. Take operating systems for mobile phones: The #1 and #2 worldwide products – Google’s Android and Apple’s iOS – both come out of the valley. Their leadership has driven a massive shift in the geography of value creation in the mobile industry. In the 2000s most value creation in mobile phones happened in Europe or Asia – think Nokia, Ericcson, and Samsung. North American giants like Motorola and Nortel got left behind and struggled mightily. Now it’s just the opposite – Nokia is famously reeling, for instance, while Apple, Google, RIM, and other North American companies are thriving.

And because the OS is at the core of mobile platforms, the success of iOS and Android is creating a massive ecosystem of value creation in the valley – mobile advertising business like Admob; mobile applications like Flipboard; mobile chips like Qualcomm’s Snapdragon, etc. While it’s possible to start great mobile companies anywhere in the world, Silicon Valley has become the single best place in the world to start most kinds of mobile software and services company.

Mobile Phone leadership is just one example where the U.S. is taking the lead globally. For another example, look at social ecommerce, where new companies like GroupOn, Living Social, and Etsy are taking off and creating a huge amount of value.

Scott’s second misguided thought about Social Networking is his dismissive attitude: “I’m not sure it’s really going to change the quality of life in a positive way,” implying that Social Networking is just some frilly consumer fad like a hula hoop. I couldn’t disagree more. Social Platforms are enriching and redefining how hundreds of millions of people work, navigate through information, and communicate. Yes Social Platforms are also great for playing games. But to imply, as Scott does, that the essence of Social Networking is gaming is as misguided as saying that PCs are just toys simply because they’re great for playing video games. (Of course, back in Scott’s day Sun used to take this position, but that’s a different matter…)

Look, the Valley’s not in perfect shape by any means. Regional unemployment is way too high, as it is across the Country. The new software-driven Valley is not as labor intensive as a manufacturing industry like cars. But that’s nothing new — IT manufacturing has been moving out of the U.S. for at least two decades.

Scott’s also right that the cost of doing business in Silicon Valley is high. But it’s been high for many years and that hasn’t stopped four generations of entrepreneurs from thriving and building great businesses for 40 years. And it’s not holding back the next generation of great entrepreneurs and great businesses.

Rob Glaser (Twitter: @RobGlaser) is Founder and Chairman of RealNetworks, and a Venture Partner at Accel Partners.

View the original article here

May 1, 2002: Larry Page And Eric Schmidt Talk About Google, The Future, And Their Dynamic

On May 1, 2002, two men took the stage at a Stanford University event to answer some questions about their startup. The startup? Google. The two men? Eric Schmidt and Larry Page.

That was less than a year after Schmidt officially became CEO of the company, taking over the role from Page. Yesterday, after a decade of success, the two announced they would be switching back. And while some answers are starting to trickle out as to why such a change is taking place now, it’s fascinating to look back in time and see how it all began. Luckily, Stanford captured the talk in 24 short videos clips found here.

One particularly interesting clip is where Schmidt talks about “new leadership and organizational change”. Schmidt talks about the differences between running Novell and Google. “What I found was a company that was working extremely well, but just needed a little bit of list-making and structure. And that’s frankly what I’ve been relegated to,” Schmidt says of Google with a laugh. “Oh no, that’s not true,” Page chimes in. Still laughing, Schmidt says, “It’s okay, your strategy is working pretty good. It’s working well so far.“

Reports today have similar tension being behind the switch. And while they’re clearly at least half-joking here, it’s actually kind of amazing the partnership lasted in the same capacity eight and a half years later.  It’s also funny to hear Schmidt refer to the company as “the Google”.

Another clip has Schmidt talking about how Google won the then all-important partnership with AOL for search. He kicks things off by saying, ”One of the most wonderful things about being a private company is that we don’t have to answer any of those questions.” Remember, that was over two years before Google’s IPO. And that response sounds a bit like something Facebook would say today.

In another clip, Page shows off a picture of a really happy day at Google. Why was everyone so happy? They had just signed the AOL deal. (Hey, like us!)

In this clip, Page talks about innovation at Google. “I guess as Google’s gotten bigger — we’re almost 400 people now — you start to notice that s you get more and more people working on one thing, it’s harder and harder for them to be innovating just because of the communications cost and the inertia and all those kinds of things,” Page says. Again, that was an issue with 400 people — Google now has nearly 25,000 employees. And so perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that this slow down in innovation was one of the reasons cited for yesterday’s change.

Here, Schmidt jokes that “I should say, by the way, that after seeing the way we hire people, I’m amazed that I got through the filter.”

But this video may be the most interesting of all. On the topic of legal issues, Schmidt and Page joke about a couple of different things facing the company, but they’re also clearly serious. Schmidt is concerned about a lawsuit against Google, while Page is concerned about DMCA takedowns (pertaining to Scientology, in this case). Schmidt cares about the business side, Page cares about the information side.

Finally, here Page talks about Google censorship in some countries. While he notes it isn’t a big issue at the time, he worries that it could become a big issue. A report today in the New Yorker by Ken Auletta has one of the main reasons for the CEO shakeup being that Page sided with co-founder Sergey Brin over their pull-out of China, while Schmidt, again from a business perspective, wanted to go the other way.

Each of the short videos is a fascinating look into the early days of the company and the perspective of Page and Schmidt, the once and future CEOs of Google.

View the original article here

May 1, 2002: Larry Page And Eric Schmidt Talk About Google, The Future, And Their Dynamic

On May 1, 2002, two men took the stage at a Stanford University event to answer some questions about their startup. The startup? Google. The two men? Eric Schmidt and Larry Page.

That was less than a year after Schmidt officially became CEO of the company, taking over the role from Page. Yesterday, after a decade of success, the two announced they would be switching back. And while some answers are starting to trickle out as to why such a change is taking place now, it’s fascinating to look back in time and see how it all began. Luckily, Stanford captured the talk in 24 short videos clips found here.

One particularly interesting clip is where Schmidt talks about “new leadership and organizational change”. Schmidt talks about the differences between running Novell and Google. “What I found was a company that was working extremely well, but just needed a little bit of list-making and structure. And that’s frankly what I’ve been relegated to,” Schmidt says of Google with a laugh. “Oh no, that’s not true,” Page chimes in. Still laughing, Schmidt says, “It’s okay, your strategy is working pretty good. It’s working well so far.“

Reports today have similar tension being behind the switch. And while they’re clearly at least half-joking here, it’s actually kind of amazing the partnership lasted in the same capacity eight and a half years later.  It’s also funny to hear Schmidt refer to the company as “the Google”.

Another clip has Schmidt talking about how Google won the then all-important partnership with AOL for search. He kicks things off by saying, ”One of the most wonderful things about being a private company is that we don’t have to answer any of those questions.” Remember, that was over two years before Google’s IPO. And that response sounds a bit like something Facebook would say today.

In another clip, Page shows off a picture of a really happy day at Google. Why was everyone so happy? They had just signed the AOL deal. (Hey, like us!)

In this clip, Page talks about innovation at Google. “I guess as Google’s gotten bigger — we’re almost 400 people now — you start to notice that s you get more and more people working on one thing, it’s harder and harder for them to be innovating just because of the communications cost and the inertia and all those kinds of things,” Page says. Again, that was an issue with 400 people — Google now has nearly 25,000 employees. And so perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that this slow down in innovation was one of the reasons cited for yesterday’s change.

Here, Schmidt jokes that “I should say, by the way, that after seeing the way we hire people, I’m amazed that I got through the filter.”

But this video may be the most interesting of all. On the topic of legal issues, Schmidt and Page joke about a couple of different things facing the company, but they’re also clearly serious. Schmidt is concerned about a lawsuit against Google, while Page is concerned about DMCA takedowns (pertaining to Scientology, in this case). Schmidt cares about the business side, Page cares about the information side.

Finally, here Page talks about Google censorship in some countries. While he notes it isn’t a big issue at the time, he worries that it could become a big issue. A report today in the New Yorker by Ken Auletta has one of the main reasons for the CEO shakeup being that Page sided with co-founder Sergey Brin over their pull-out of China, while Schmidt, again from a business perspective, wanted to go the other way.

Each of the short videos is a fascinating look into the early days of the company and the perspective of Page and Schmidt, the once and future CEOs of Google.

View the original article here