Russian hackers keep trying to infiltrate Microsoft, the company revealed in a blog post. These hacks follow a similar incident from November of last year, in which state-sponsored agents obtained the emails of Microsoft’s senior level managers. An internal investigation led by Microsoft identified the hackers in both instances as a Russian group called Midnight Blizzard.
It looks like Midnight Blizzard has gotten bolder in its approach. Last year’s attack seemed to prioritize the collection of email addresses, but this most recent attack finds the group repeatedly attempting to breach the company’s systems and gain access to source code. Microsoft has filed an incident report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
We don’t know exactly what these hackers want, but Microsoft said they are likely using email addresses acquired during November’s attack to help gain access to internal systems. Midnight Blizzard “may be using the information it has obtained to accumulate a picture of areas towhich led to a breach of government networks. attack and enhance its ability to do so,” the company wrote. I know one thing. They had better leave Clippy alone.
Midnight Blizzard is believed to work directly for Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) and is said to operate at the behest of Vladimir Putin. The group is likely behind 2016’s hack of the Democratic National Committee and 2020’s hack of the software company SolarWinds, which led to a breach of government networks.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/russian-state-sponsored-hackers-keep-trying-to-infiltrate-microsoft-162706062.html?src=rss
A group of 41 state attorneys general are demanding that Meta step up its support services for users who have been victims of hacks and account takeovers. “We refuse to operate as the customer service representatives of your company,” the group writes in a letter addressed to Meta’s chief legal officer. “We request Meta take immediate action and substantially increase its investment in account takeover mitigation tactics, as well as responding to users whose accounts were taken over.”
The letter, which was first reported by Wired, pushes Meta to deal with an issue that has long been a source of frustration to Facebook and Instagram users: the difficulty in accessing support after you lose access to your account. Though the company has taken steps over the years to make it easier for people to recover lost accounts, Meta largely relies on automated systems and there are still many people who fall through cracks.
As the letter highlights, this can be especially devastating for people who lose access to business accounts and pages. Even high-profile creators can find themselves unable to get support from a human employee of the company unless they have a personal connection to someone who works at Meta. Other users sometimes resort to legal services or hiring their own hackers to get their accounts back.
While it may seem surprising that state law enforcement officials would get involved in this issue, Reddit and other online forums for hacking victims often advise people to lodge complaints with their local AG’s office as a last resort. Some users have reported regaining access to their accounts after a state attorney general’s office intervened on their behalf.
Now, AGs are apparently flooded with such requests. “Our offices have experienced a dramatic and persistent spike in complaints in recent years concerning account takeovers that is not only alarming for our constituents but also a substantial drain on our office resources,” the letter states.
In addition to putting more resources into customer service, the letter asks Meta to provide more details on “the number of account takeovers over the past five years; suspected causes of the increase in account takeovers; safeguards currently in place to prevent account takeovers; current policies and procedures related to Meta’s response to account takeovers; and staffing related to safeguarding the platforms against account takeovers as well as responding to complaints.”
In a statement, a Meta spokesperson said that “scammers use every platform available to them and constantly adapt to evade enforcement” from the company. “We invest heavily in our trained enforcement and review teams and have specialized detection tools to identify compromised accounts and other fraudulent activity. We regularly share tips and tools people can use to protect themselves, provide a means to report potential violations, work with law enforcement and take legal action."
In 2022, Bloomberg reported that Meta was in the “early stages” creating a customer service division that would be able to help users with account issues. It's unclear what became of the plan. Later that year, the company laid off thousands of employees. In their letter, the state AGs notes that they saw an uptick in complaints “around the same time Meta announced a massive layoff of around 11,000 employees in November 2022, which reportedly focused on the ‘security and privacy and integrity sector.’”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/41-state-attorneys-general-tell-meta-to-fix-their-customer-support-for-hacking-victims-184709904.html?src=rss
A group of 41 state attorneys general are demanding that Meta step up its support services for users who have been victims of hacks and account takeovers. “We refuse to operate as the customer service representatives of your company,” the group writes in a letter addressed to Meta’s chief legal officer. “We request Meta take immediate action and substantially increase its investment in account takeover mitigation tactics, as well as responding to users whose accounts were taken over.”
The letter, which was first reported by Wired, pushes Meta to deal with an issue that has long been a source of frustration to Facebook and Instagram users: the difficulty in accessing support after you lose access to your account. Though the company has taken steps over the years to make it easier for people to recover lost accounts, Meta largely relies on automated systems and there are still many people who fall through cracks.
As the letter highlights, this can be especially devastating for people who lose access to business accounts and pages. Even high-profile creators can find themselves unable to get support from a human employee of the company unless they have a personal connection to someone who works at Meta. Other users sometimes resort to legal services or hiring their own hackers to get their accounts back.
While it may seem surprising that state law enforcement officials would get involved in this issue, Reddit and other online forums for hacking victims often advise people to lodge complaints with their local AG’s office as a last resort. Some users have reported regaining access to their accounts after a state attorney general’s office intervened on their behalf.
Now, AGs are apparently flooded with such requests. “Our offices have experienced a dramatic and persistent spike in complaints in recent years concerning account takeovers that is not only alarming for our constituents but also a substantial drain on our office resources,” the letter states.
In addition to putting more resources into customer service, the letter asks Meta to provide more details on “the number of account takeovers over the past five years; suspected causes of the increase in account takeovers; safeguards currently in place to prevent account takeovers; current policies and procedures related to Meta’s response to account takeovers; and staffing related to safeguarding the platforms against account takeovers as well as responding to complaints.”
In a statement, a Meta spokesperson said that “scammers use every platform available to them and constantly adapt to evade enforcement” from the company. “We invest heavily in our trained enforcement and review teams and have specialized detection tools to identify compromised accounts and other fraudulent activity. We regularly share tips and tools people can use to protect themselves, provide a means to report potential violations, work with law enforcement and take legal action."
In 2022, Bloomberg reported that Meta was in the “early stages” creating a customer service division that would be able to help users with account issues. It's unclear what became of the plan. Later that year, the company laid off thousands of employees. In their letter, the state AGs notes that they saw an uptick in complaints “around the same time Meta announced a massive layoff of around 11,000 employees in November 2022, which reportedly focused on the ‘security and privacy and integrity sector.’”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/41-state-attorneys-general-tell-meta-to-fix-their-customer-support-for-hacking-victims-184709904.html?src=rss
The battle between AI chatbots is more than a two-horse race. Anthropic, the company formed by several ex-OpenAI employees, claims its new Claude 3 language model outperforms ChatGPT and Google's Gemini in several key industry benchmarks. It even hit "near-human" levels on some tasks, the company wrote in a blog.
There are three new chatbots under the Claude 3 umbrella, including Haiku, Sonnet, and Opus. Sonnet powers the Claude.ai chatbot and is offered for free with an email sign-in. Meanwhile, Opus is the largest and most powerful LLM and will be available with a $20 per month subscription via the "Claude Pro" service. It's also multi-modal, so it can work with both text and image inputs, unlike past versions.
All Claude 3 models "can power live customer chats, auto-completions and data extraction tasks where responses must be immediate and in real-time," the company said. On top of promising "near-instant results," they can supposedly handle longer, multi-step instructions with increased accuracy.
Anthropic
Opus showed better graduate-level reasoning than GPT-4, scoring 14.7 percent higher in that test than GPT-4. It also beat OpenAI's chatbot in tasks involving math, coding, reasoning and knowledge.
They also top past Claude models. "For the vast majority of workloads, Sonnet is 2x faster than Claude 2 and Claude 2.1 with higher levels of intelligence. It excels at tasks demanding rapid responses, like knowledge retrieval or sales automation. Opus delivers similar speeds to Claude 2 and 2.1, but with much higher levels of intelligence," according to Anthropic.
Meanwhile Haiku, the smallest version of Claude 3, is "the fastest and most cost-effective model on the market." To that end, it's capable of reading a dense research paper complete with charts and graphs in under three seconds.
The company also noted that Claude 3 "can process a wide range of visual formats, including photos, charts, graphs and technical diagrams," aiding companies that use PDFs, flowcharts, or presentation slides. It'll also be less likely to refuse harmless content thanks to a more nuanced understanding of requests, while still recognizing "real harm."
Anthropic has said that Claude AI is guided by 10 secret foundational pillars of fairness. Claude 3 was trained on both nonpublic internal and public-facing data, using hardware from Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Google Cloud (Amazon recently invested $4 billion in Anthropic).
Claude 3 Opus and Claude 3 Sonnet are available now through Anthropic's API, with Haiku set to follow soon. Sonnet is also accessible through Amazon Bedrock and in private preview on Google Cloud's Vertex AI Model Garden.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/anthropic-says-its-new-claude-3-ai-chatbot-scores-better-on-key-benchmarks-than-gpt-4-071343736.html?src=rss
The battle between AI chatbots is more than a two-horse race. Anthropic, the company formed by several ex-OpenAI employees, claims its new Claude 3 language model outperforms ChatGPT and Google's Gemini in several key industry benchmarks. It even hit "near-human" levels on some tasks, the company wrote in a blog.
There are three new chatbots under the Claude 3 umbrella, including Haiku, Sonnet, and Opus. Sonnet powers the Claude.ai chatbot and is offered for free with an email sign-in. Meanwhile, Opus is the largest and most powerful LLM and will be available with a $20 per month subscription via the "Claude Pro" service. It's also multi-modal, so it can work with both text and image inputs, unlike past versions.
All Claude 3 models "can power live customer chats, auto-completions and data extraction tasks where responses must be immediate and in real-time," the company said. On top of promising "near-instant results," they can supposedly handle longer, multi-step instructions with increased accuracy.
Anthropic
Opus showed better graduate-level reasoning than GPT-4, scoring 14.7 percent higher in that test than GPT-4. It also beat OpenAI's chatbot in tasks involving math, coding, reasoning and knowledge.
They also top past Claude models. "For the vast majority of workloads, Sonnet is 2x faster than Claude 2 and Claude 2.1 with higher levels of intelligence. It excels at tasks demanding rapid responses, like knowledge retrieval or sales automation. Opus delivers similar speeds to Claude 2 and 2.1, but with much higher levels of intelligence," according to Anthropic.
Meanwhile Haiku, the smallest version of Claude 3, is "the fastest and most cost-effective model on the market." To that end, it's capable of reading a dense research paper complete with charts and graphs in under three seconds.
The company also noted that Claude 3 "can process a wide range of visual formats, including photos, charts, graphs and technical diagrams," aiding companies that use PDFs, flowcharts, or presentation slides. It'll also be less likely to refuse harmless content thanks to a more nuanced understanding of requests, while still recognizing "real harm."
Anthropic has said that Claude AI is guided by 10 secret foundational pillars of fairness. Claude 3 was trained on both nonpublic internal and public-facing data, using hardware from Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Google Cloud (Amazon recently invested $4 billion in Anthropic).
Claude 3 Opus and Claude 3 Sonnet are available now through Anthropic's API, with Haiku set to follow soon. Sonnet is also accessible through Amazon Bedrock and in private preview on Google Cloud's Vertex AI Model Garden.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/anthropic-says-its-new-claude-3-ai-chatbot-scores-better-on-key-benchmarks-than-gpt-4-071343736.html?src=rss
It’s 1995, and I’m trying to watch a video on the internet. I entered the longest, most complex URL I’d ever seen into AOL’s web browser to view a trailer for Paul W.S. Anderson’s long-awaited film adaptation of Mortal Kombat. I found it in an issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly, tucked away in the bottom of a full-page ad for the film. Online marketing at the time was such an afterthought, studios didn’t even bother grabbing short and memorable web addresses for their major releases, let alone dedicated websites. (Star Trek Generations and Stargate were among the few early exceptions.)
After the interminable process of transcribing the URL from print, I gathered my family around our Packard Bell PC (powered by an Intel 486 DX and, let’s say, 8MB of RAM), hit return and waited as the video slowly came down our 33.6kbps dial-up connection. And waited. It took 25 minutes for it to fully load. After corralling my family once again, I hit play and was treated to an horrendously compressed, low-resolution version of the trailer I’d been dreaming about for months. It was unwatchable. The audio was shit. But that was the moment I became obsessed with online video.
I imagined a futuristic world beyond my boxy CRT set and limited cable TV subscription. A time after VHS tapes when I could just type in a URL and enjoy a show or movie while eating one of those rehydrated Pizza Hut pies from Back to the Future 2. The internet would make it so.
Looking back now, almost 30 years later, and 20 years after Engadget sprung to life, I realize my 11-year-old self was spot on. The rise of online video transformed the internet from a place where we’d browse the web, update our LiveJournals, steal music and chat with friends on AIM to a place where we could also just sit back and relax. For Millennials, it quickly made our computer screens more important than our TVs. What I didn’t expect, though, was that streaming video would also completely upend Hollywood and the entire entertainment industry.
If my experience with the Mortal Kombat trailer didn’t make it clear enough, video was a disaster on the internet in the ’90s. Most web surfers (as we were known as the time) were stuck with terribly slow modems and similarly unimpressive desktop systems. But really, the problem goes back to dealing with video on computers.
Apple’s Quicktime format made Macs the ideal platform for multimedia creators, and, together with its Hypercard software for creating interactive multimedia databases, it spawned the rise of Myst and the obsession with mixed-media educational software. PCs relied on MPEG-1, which debuted in 1993 and was mainly for VCDs and some digital TV providers. The problem with both formats was space: Hard drives were notoriously small and expensive at the time, which made CDs the main option for accessing any sort of video on your computer. If your computer only had a 500MB hard drive, a slim disc that could store 650MB seemed like magic.
But that also meant video had no place in the early internet. RealPlayer was the first true stab at delivering streaming video and audio online — and while it was better than waiting 20 minutes for a huge file to download, it was still hard to actually stream media when you were constrained by a dial-up modem. I remember seeing buffering alerts more than I did any actual RealPlayer content. It took the proliferation of broadband internet access and one special app from Adobe to make web video truly viable.
While we may curse its name today, it’s worth remembering how vital Macromedia Flash was to the web in the early 2000s. (We’ve been around long enough to cover Adobe’s acquisition of Macromedia in 2005!) Its support for vector graphics, stylized text and simple games injected new life into the internet, and it allowed just about anyone to create that content. HTML just wasn’t enough. Ask any teen or 20-something who was online at the time, and they could probably still recite most of The End of the World by heart.
With 2002’s Flash MX 6, Macromedia added support for Sorenson’s Spark video codec, which opened the floodgates for online video. (It was eventually replaced in 2005 by the VP6 codec from On2, a company Google acquired in 2009.) Macromedia’s video offering looked decent, loaded quickly and was supported on every browser that had the Flash plugin, making it the ideal player choice for video websites.
The adult entertainment industry latched onto Flash video first, as you’d expect. Porn sites also relied on the technology to lock down purchased videos and entice viewers to other sites with interactive ads. But it was YouTube (and, to a lesser extent, Vimeo) that truly showed mainstream users what was possible with video on the internet. After launching in February 2005, YouTube grew so quickly it was serving 100 million videos a day by July 2006, making up 60 percent of all online videos at the time. It’s no wonder Google rushed to acquire the company for $1.65 billion later that year (arguably the search giant’s smartest purchase ever).
After YouTube’s shockingly fast rise, it wasn’t too surprising to see Netflix announce its own Watch Now streaming service in 2007, which also relied on Flash for video. At $17.99 a month for 18 hours of video, with a library of only 1,000 titles, Netflix’s streaming offering didn’t seem like much of a threat to Blockbuster, premium cable channels or cinemas at first. But the company wisely expanded Watch Now to all Netflix subscribers in 2008 and removed any viewing cap: The Netflix binge was born.
It’s 2007, and I’m trying to watch a video on the internet. In my post-college apartment, I hooked up my desktop computer to an early-era (720p) Philips HDTV, and all of a sudden, I had access to thousands of movies, instantly viewable over a semi-decent cable connection. I didn’t need to worry about seeding torrents or compiling Usenet files (things I’d only heard about from dirty pirates, you see). I didn’t have to stress about any Blockbuster late fees. The movies were just sitting on my TV, waiting for me to watch them. It was the dream for digital media fanatics: Legal content available at the touch of a button. What a concept!
Little did I know then that the Watch Now concept would basically take over the world. Netflix initially wanted to create hardware to make the service more easily accessible, but it ended up spinning off that idea, and Roku was born. The company’s streaming push also spurred on the creation of Hulu, announced in late 2007 as a joint offering between NBCUniversal and News Corp. to bring their television shows online. Disney later joined, giving Hulu the full power of all the major broadcast TV networks. Instead of a stale library of older films, Hulu allowed you to watch new shows on the internet the day after they aired. Again, what a concept!
Amazon, it turns out, was actually earlier to the streaming party than Netflix. It launched the Amazon Unbox service in 2006, which was notable for letting you watch videos as they were being downloaded onto your computer. It was rebadged to Amazon Video On Demand in 2008 (a better name, which actually described what it did), and then it became Amazon Instant Video in 2011, when it was tied together with premium Prime memberships.
As the world of streaming video exploded, Flash’s reputation kept getting worse. By the mid-2000s, it was widely recognized as a notoriously buggy program, one so insecure it could lead to malware infecting your PC. (I worked in IT at the time, and the vast majority of issues I encountered on Windows PCs stemmed entirely from Flash.) When the iPhone launched without support for Flash in 2007, it was clear the end was near. YouTube and other video sites moved over to HTML5 video players at that point, and it became the standard by 2015.
By the early 2010s, YouTube and Amazon weren’t happy just licensing content from Hollywood, they wanted some of the action themselves. So the original programming boom began, which kicked off with mostly forgettable shows (anyone remember Netflix’s Lillyhammer or Amazon’s Alpha House? Hemlock Grove? They existed, I swear!).
But then came House of Cards in 2013, Netflix’s original series created by playwright Beau Willimon, executive produced (and partially directed) by renowned filmmaker David Fincher and starring Oscar winner Kevin Spacey (before he was revealed to be a monster). It had all of the ingredients of a premium TV show, and, thanks to Fincher’s deft direction, it looked like something that would be right at home on HBO. Most importantly for Netflix, it got some serious awards love, earning nine Emmy nominations in 2013 and walking away with three statues.
By that point, we could watch streaming video in many more places than our computer’s web browser. You could pull up just about anything on your phone and stream it over 4G LTE, or use your smart TV’s built-in apps to catch up on SNL over Hulu. Your Xbox could also serve as the centerpiece of your home entertainment system. And if you wanted the best possible streaming experience, you could pick up an Apple TV or Roku box. You could start a show on your phone while sitting on the can, then seamlessly continue it when you made your way back to your TV. This was certainly some sort of milestone for humanity, though I’m torn on it actually being a net win for our species.
Instant streaming video. Original TV shows and movies. This was the basic formula that pushed far too many companies to offer their own streaming solutions over the past decade. In the blink of an eye, we got HBO Max, Disney+, Apple TV+, Peacock, and Paramount+. There’s AMC+, powered almost entirely by the promise of unlimited Walking Dead shows. A Starz streaming service. And there are countless other companies trying to be a Netflix for specific niches, like Shudder for horror, Criterion Channel for cinephiles and Britbox for the tea-soaked murder-mystery crowd.
And let’s not forget the wildest, most boneheaded streaming swing: Quibi. That was Dreamworks mastermind Jeffrey Katzenberg’s nearly $2 billion mobile video play. Somehow he and his compatriots thought people would pay $5 a month for the privilege of watching videos on their phones, even though YouTube was freely available.
Every entertainment company thinks it can be as successful as Disney, which has a vast and beloved catalog of content as well as full control of Lucasfilm and Marvel’s properties. But, realistically, there aren’t enough eyeballs and willing consumers for every streaming service to succeed. Some will die off entirely, while others will bring their content to Netflix and more popular services (like Paramount is doing with Star Trek Prodigy). There are already early rumors of Comcast (NBCUniversal’s parent company) and Paramount considering some sort of union between Peacock and Paramount+.
Online video was supposed to save us from the tyranny of expensive and chaotic cable bills, and despite the messiness of the arena today, that’s still mostly true. Sure, if you actually wanted to subscribe to most of the major streaming services, you’d still end up paying a hefty chunk of change. But hey, at least you can cancel at will, and you can still choose precisely what you’re paying for. Cable would never.
It’s 2024, and I’m trying to watch a video on the internet. I slip on the Apple Vision Pro, a device that looks like it could have been a prop for The Matrix. I launch Safari in a 150-inch window floating above my living room and watch the Mortal Kombat trailer on YouTube. That whole process takes 10 seconds. I never had the chance to see the trailer or the original film in the theater. But thanks to the internet (and Apple’s crazy expensive headset), I can replicate that experience.
Perhaps that’s why, no matter how convoluted and expensive streaming video services become, I’ll always think: At least it’s better than watching this thing over dial-up.
To celebrate Engadget's 20th anniversary, we're taking a look back at the products and services that have changed the industry since March 2, 2004.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/streaming-video-changed-the-internet-forever-170014082.html?src=rss
It’s 1995, and I’m trying to watch a video on the internet. I entered the longest, most complex URL I’d ever seen into AOL’s web browser to view a trailer for Paul W.S. Anderson’s long-awaited film adaptation of Mortal Kombat. I found it in an issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly, tucked away in the bottom of a full-page ad for the film. Online marketing at the time was such an afterthought, studios didn’t even bother grabbing short and memorable web addresses for their major releases, let alone dedicated websites. (Star Trek Generations and Stargate were among the few early exceptions.)
After the interminable process of transcribing the URL from print, I gathered my family around our Packard Bell PC (powered by an Intel 486 DX and, let’s say, 8MB of RAM), hit return and waited as the video slowly came down our 33.6kbps dial-up connection. And waited. It took 25 minutes for it to fully load. After corralling my family once again, I hit play and was treated to an horrendously compressed, low-resolution version of the trailer I’d been dreaming about for months. It was unwatchable. The audio was shit. But that was the moment I became obsessed with online video.
I imagined a futuristic world beyond my boxy CRT set and limited cable TV subscription. A time after VHS tapes when I could just type in a URL and enjoy a show or movie while eating one of those rehydrated Pizza Hut pies from Back to the Future 2. The internet would make it so.
Looking back now, almost 30 years later, and 20 years after Engadget sprung to life, I realize my 11-year-old self was spot on. The rise of online video transformed the internet from a place where we’d browse the web, update our LiveJournals, steal music and chat with friends on AIM to a place where we could also just sit back and relax. For Millennials, it quickly made our computer screens more important than our TVs. What I didn’t expect, though, was that streaming video would also completely upend Hollywood and the entire entertainment industry.
If my experience with the Mortal Kombat trailer didn’t make it clear enough, video was a disaster on the internet in the ’90s. Most web surfers (as we were known as the time) were stuck with terribly slow modems and similarly unimpressive desktop systems. But really, the problem goes back to dealing with video on computers.
Apple’s Quicktime format made Macs the ideal platform for multimedia creators, and, together with its Hypercard software for creating interactive multimedia databases, it spawned the rise of Myst and the obsession with mixed-media educational software. PCs relied on MPEG-1, which debuted in 1993 and was mainly for VCDs and some digital TV providers. The problem with both formats was space: Hard drives were notoriously small and expensive at the time, which made CDs the main option for accessing any sort of video on your computer. If your computer only had a 500MB hard drive, a slim disc that could store 650MB seemed like magic.
But that also meant video had no place in the early internet. RealPlayer was the first true stab at delivering streaming video and audio online — and while it was better than waiting 20 minutes for a huge file to download, it was still hard to actually stream media when you were constrained by a dial-up modem. I remember seeing buffering alerts more than I did any actual RealPlayer content. It took the proliferation of broadband internet access and one special app from Adobe to make web video truly viable.
While we may curse its name today, it’s worth remembering how vital Macromedia Flash was to the web in the early 2000s. (We’ve been around long enough to cover Adobe’s acquisition of Macromedia in 2005!) Its support for vector graphics, stylized text and simple games injected new life into the internet, and it allowed just about anyone to create that content. HTML just wasn’t enough. Ask any teen or 20-something who was online at the time, and they could probably still recite most of The End of the World by heart.
With 2002’s Flash MX 6, Macromedia added support for Sorenson’s Spark video codec, which opened the floodgates for online video. (It was eventually replaced in 2005 by the VP6 codec from On2, a company Google acquired in 2009.) Macromedia’s video offering looked decent, loaded quickly and was supported on every browser that had the Flash plugin, making it the ideal player choice for video websites.
The adult entertainment industry latched onto Flash video first, as you’d expect. Porn sites also relied on the technology to lock down purchased videos and entice viewers to other sites with interactive ads. But it was YouTube (and, to a lesser extent, Vimeo) that truly showed mainstream users what was possible with video on the internet. After launching in February 2005, YouTube grew so quickly it was serving 100 million videos a day by July 2006, making up 60 percent of all online videos at the time. It’s no wonder Google rushed to acquire the company for $1.65 billion later that year (arguably the search giant’s smartest purchase ever).
After YouTube’s shockingly fast rise, it wasn’t too surprising to see Netflix announce its own Watch Now streaming service in 2007, which also relied on Flash for video. At $17.99 a month for 18 hours of video, with a library of only 1,000 titles, Netflix’s streaming offering didn’t seem like much of a threat to Blockbuster, premium cable channels or cinemas at first. But the company wisely expanded Watch Now to all Netflix subscribers in 2008 and removed any viewing cap: The Netflix binge was born.
It’s 2007, and I’m trying to watch a video on the internet. In my post-college apartment, I hooked up my desktop computer to an early-era (720p) Philips HDTV, and all of a sudden, I had access to thousands of movies, instantly viewable over a semi-decent cable connection. I didn’t need to worry about seeding torrents or compiling Usenet files (things I’d only heard about from dirty pirates, you see). I didn’t have to stress about any Blockbuster late fees. The movies were just sitting on my TV, waiting for me to watch them. It was the dream for digital media fanatics: Legal content available at the touch of a button. What a concept!
Little did I know then that the Watch Now concept would basically take over the world. Netflix initially wanted to create hardware to make the service more easily accessible, but it ended up spinning off that idea, and Roku was born. The company’s streaming push also spurred on the creation of Hulu, announced in late 2007 as a joint offering between NBCUniversal and News Corp. to bring their television shows online. Disney later joined, giving Hulu the full power of all the major broadcast TV networks. Instead of a stale library of older films, Hulu allowed you to watch new shows on the internet the day after they aired. Again, what a concept!
Amazon, it turns out, was actually earlier to the streaming party than Netflix. It launched the Amazon Unbox service in 2006, which was notable for letting you watch videos as they were being downloaded onto your computer. It was rebadged to Amazon Video On Demand in 2008 (a better name, which actually described what it did), and then it became Amazon Instant Video in 2011, when it was tied together with premium Prime memberships.
As the world of streaming video exploded, Flash’s reputation kept getting worse. By the mid-2000s, it was widely recognized as a notoriously buggy program, one so insecure it could lead to malware infecting your PC. (I worked in IT at the time, and the vast majority of issues I encountered on Windows PCs stemmed entirely from Flash.) When the iPhone launched without support for Flash in 2007, it was clear the end was near. YouTube and other video sites moved over to HTML5 video players at that point, and it became the standard by 2015.
By the early 2010s, YouTube and Amazon weren’t happy just licensing content from Hollywood, they wanted some of the action themselves. So the original programming boom began, which kicked off with mostly forgettable shows (anyone remember Netflix’s Lillyhammer or Amazon’s Alpha House? Hemlock Grove? They existed, I swear!).
But then came House of Cards in 2013, Netflix’s original series created by playwright Beau Willimon, executive produced (and partially directed) by renowned filmmaker David Fincher and starring Oscar winner Kevin Spacey (before he was revealed to be a monster). It had all of the ingredients of a premium TV show, and, thanks to Fincher’s deft direction, it looked like something that would be right at home on HBO. Most importantly for Netflix, it got some serious awards love, earning nine Emmy nominations in 2013 and walking away with three statues.
By that point, we could watch streaming video in many more places than our computer’s web browser. You could pull up just about anything on your phone and stream it over 4G LTE, or use your smart TV’s built-in apps to catch up on SNL over Hulu. Your Xbox could also serve as the centerpiece of your home entertainment system. And if you wanted the best possible streaming experience, you could pick up an Apple TV or Roku box. You could start a show on your phone while sitting on the can, then seamlessly continue it when you made your way back to your TV. This was certainly some sort of milestone for humanity, though I’m torn on it actually being a net win for our species.
Instant streaming video. Original TV shows and movies. This was the basic formula that pushed far too many companies to offer their own streaming solutions over the past decade. In the blink of an eye, we got HBO Max, Disney+, Apple TV+, Peacock, and Paramount+. There’s AMC+, powered almost entirely by the promise of unlimited Walking Dead shows. A Starz streaming service. And there are countless other companies trying to be a Netflix for specific niches, like Shudder for horror, Criterion Channel for cinephiles and Britbox for the tea-soaked murder-mystery crowd.
And let’s not forget the wildest, most boneheaded streaming swing: Quibi. That was Dreamworks mastermind Jeffrey Katzenberg’s nearly $2 billion mobile video play. Somehow he and his compatriots thought people would pay $5 a month for the privilege of watching videos on their phones, even though YouTube was freely available.
Every entertainment company thinks it can be as successful as Disney, which has a vast and beloved catalog of content as well as full control of Lucasfilm and Marvel’s properties. But, realistically, there aren’t enough eyeballs and willing consumers for every streaming service to succeed. Some will die off entirely, while others will bring their content to Netflix and more popular services (like Paramount is doing with Star Trek Prodigy). There are already early rumors of Comcast (NBCUniversal’s parent company) and Paramount considering some sort of union between Peacock and Paramount+.
Online video was supposed to save us from the tyranny of expensive and chaotic cable bills, and despite the messiness of the arena today, that’s still mostly true. Sure, if you actually wanted to subscribe to most of the major streaming services, you’d still end up paying a hefty chunk of change. But hey, at least you can cancel at will, and you can still choose precisely what you’re paying for. Cable would never.
It’s 2024, and I’m trying to watch a video on the internet. I slip on the Apple Vision Pro, a device that looks like it could have been a prop for The Matrix. I launch Safari in a 150-inch window floating above my living room and watch the Mortal Kombat trailer on YouTube. That whole process takes 10 seconds. I never had the chance to see the trailer or the original film in the theater. But thanks to the internet (and Apple’s crazy expensive headset), I can replicate that experience.
Perhaps that’s why, no matter how convoluted and expensive streaming video services become, I’ll always think: At least it’s better than watching this thing over dial-up.
To celebrate Engadget's 20th anniversary, we're taking a look back at the products and services that have changed the industry since March 2, 2004.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/streaming-video-changed-the-internet-forever-170014082.html?src=rss
Meta and LG have partnered up to “expedite” the former company’s extended reality (XR) business. What does that mean exactly? We don’t know, but Meta’s current VR/XR business is fairly robust, with the recent release of the Quest 3 headset.
LG says the ultimate goal of the partnership is “to combine the strengths of both companies across products, content, services and platforms to drive innovation in customer experiences within the burgeoning virtual space.”
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg traveled to LG’s headquarters in Seoul to announce the collaboration. During this visit, LG CEO William Cho tried out the Quest 3 and the recently-released Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses. The business leaders discussed “business strategies and considerations for next-gen XR device development.” LG’s CEO also seemed to take a particularly keen interest in Meta’s large language models and the potential to further integrate AI into standalone devices.
As stated above, we don’t know exactly what this partnership will entail. LG says it hopes to bring together “Meta’s platform with its own content/service capabilities” from its TV business. That sounds pretty boring, but LG also said the partnership will combine “Meta’s diverse core technological elements with LG’s cutting-edge product and quality capabilities.”
This leads to the lens-shaped elephant in the room. Meta XR and VR devices require displays and LG makes displays. It could be just that simple. After all, even Apple relied on Sony for the micro-OLED displays inside of the Vision Pro headset.
This news follows LG creating a dedicated XR business unit last year, which was founded to “accelerate the pursuit of new ventures in the virtual space arena.” This led to rumors that the company was planning to launch its own VR/XR headset, which could still happen.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/meta-partners-up-with-lg-to-expedite-its-extended-reality-ventures-163251353.html?src=rss
Meta and LG have partnered up to “expedite” the former company’s extended reality (XR) business. What does that mean exactly? We don’t know, but Meta’s current VR/XR business is fairly robust, with the recent release of the Quest 3 headset.
LG says the ultimate goal of the partnership is “to combine the strengths of both companies across products, content, services and platforms to drive innovation in customer experiences within the burgeoning virtual space.”
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg traveled to LG’s headquarters in Seoul to announce the collaboration. During this visit, LG CEO William Cho tried out the Quest 3 and the recently-released Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses. The business leaders discussed “business strategies and considerations for next-gen XR device development.” LG’s CEO also seemed to take a particularly keen interest in Meta’s large language models and the potential to further integrate AI into standalone devices.
As stated above, we don’t know exactly what this partnership will entail. LG says it hopes to bring together “Meta’s platform with its own content/service capabilities” from its TV business. That sounds pretty boring, but LG also said the partnership will combine “Meta’s diverse core technological elements with LG’s cutting-edge product and quality capabilities.”
This leads to the lens-shaped elephant in the room. Meta XR and VR devices require displays and LG makes displays. It could be just that simple. After all, even Apple relied on Sony for the micro-OLED displays inside of the Vision Pro headset.
This news follows LG creating a dedicated XR business unit last year, which was founded to “accelerate the pursuit of new ventures in the virtual space arena.” This led to rumors that the company was planning to launch its own VR/XR headset, which could still happen.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/meta-partners-up-with-lg-to-expedite-its-extended-reality-ventures-163251353.html?src=rss
Video doorbells manufactured by a Chinese company called Eken and sold under different brands for around $30 each come with serious security issues that put their users at risk, according to Consumer Reports. The publication found that these doorbell cameras are sold on popular marketplaces like Walmart, Sears and Amazon, which has even given some of their listings the Amazon Choice badge. They're listed under the brands Eken, Tuck, Fishbot, Rakeblue, Andoe, Gemee and Luckwolf, among others, and they're typically linked to a user's phone via the Aiwit app. Outside the US, the devices are sold on global marketplaces like Shein and Temu. We found them on Chinese website Alibaba and Southeast Asian e-commerce website Lazada, as well.
Based on Consumer Reports' investigation, these devices aren't encrypted and can expose a user's home IP address and WiFi network name to the internet, making it easy for bad actors to gain entry. Worse, somebody with physical access to the doorbell could easily take control of it by creating an account on the Aiwit app and then pressing down on its button to put it into pairing mode, which then connects it with their phone. And, even if the original owner regains control, the hijacker can still get time-stamped images from the doorbell as long as they know its serial number. If they choose "to share that serial number with other individuals, or even post it online, all those people will be able to monitor the images, too," Consumer Reports explains.
Based on the ratings these doorbells' listings got on Amazon, the platform has sold thousands to people who were probably expecting the devices to be able to provide some form of security for their homes. Instead, the devices pose a threat to their safety and privacy. The doorbells could even put people's well-being and lives at risk if, say, they have stalkers or are domestic violence victims with dangerous exes who want to follow their every move.
People who own one of these video doorbells can protect themselves by disconnecting it from their WiFi and physically removing it from their homes. Consumer Reports said it notified the online marketplaces selling them about its findings in hopes that their listings would get pulled down. Temu told the publication that it's looking into the issue, but Amazon, Sears and Shein reportedly didn't even respond.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/surprise-this-30-video-doorbell-has-serious-security-issues-130630193.html?src=rss