I’m not sure where technology goes next with streaming content, but I think we have a convergence of traditional content and internet streaming in the not too distant future. Some how, entrepreneurs have to manage the dynamic environments of electronic devices (run for the hills, it’s the iPad) and streaming content. To top it off, we’ve got to build out the infrastructure to have the bandwidth to accomodate all of it. I’d expect a media mogul to attempt something like that, but the current generation is still trigger shy after Time Warner got slapped around with the AOL deal. Mind you, that parent owns HBO… so maybe we’re seeing some down road benefit of that catastrophe. Oh, and Google is also on the job (remember Google TiSP from 2007… yeah, it was a joke, but apparently they were thinking about connectivity to residential households).

If Netflix really wanted to put some pressure on the big media business, they should do a couple of things (in my not-so-humble opinion):

• Provide a rotating streaming big ticket picture on a weekly basis
• Provide the opportunity to stream weather and local media
• Provide streaming of live sporting events
• Build a library of musical performances

If we can keep technology and entrepreneurship on the tracks, we’ve got some real value-add developments coming. It takes a few years (late 90′s and early ’00′s) of stupid wasteful foolish risky ventures to help focus in on the viable opportunities. The show ponies are dieing off and the stallions are left behind. They may not get the attention of show ponies, but that’s because they’re stallions… they do –gasp– work. Our entrepreneurial communities aren’t dead, they’re focused on survival and committed to their concept. But enough of that, or I’ll start talking about the blasphemous and offensive fact that increasing government expenditure decreases small business growth and innovation.

Forget the new iPhone, this has got to be the coolest thing I’ve seen in a while. Through a partnership with Cicso and Musion Systems, there is now a holygraphic communications platform called the “Cicso On-Stage TelePresence Holographic Video Conference.”

My only suggestion– hire some marketing people to come up with a better name.

Here are a couple of points for consideration:

• $44.6 billion is almost a 70% premium over the closing price of Yahoo the day before (from A VC)
• No financial buyer in their right mind will compete with a $44.6 billion offer
• Few strategic buyers have the resources, need or depth of service necessary for acquireing Yahoo
• This is even more proof that the real legacy of computers and the digital age is not hardware or software… but content.
• Google is now on the receiving end of a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” cliche’

Also, I’d expect to see a lot of house cleaning for the portfolios of early technology venture funds. Competition should decrease with two of the three giants combining. That is combined with the overall slowing economy and pessimism on the side of analysts, managers, talking heads, media, most Democrats, and some Republicans.

Lastly (and only if you are interested in finance geek stuff), this provides example of semi-strong market efficiency at work. Nothing happened internally at Yahoo after the close of business on Thursday, January 31. The company didn’t change management, introduce a new product, report abnormal returns, etc. The only thing that happened was someone offered to purchase the stock… which has now bid up to the offer. Interestingly enough, yesterday and today the stock started bidding down slightly as the trade volume leveled off. The point… the market is moving to a new point of balance based on the simple supply and demand concept. And no one had to regulate, adjust, etc. Hmmm… perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here on the federal economic level?

Here are the thoughts of some much smarter folks:

• Fantastic “Scorpion and Frog” analogy from LearnToDuck.com
• Marc Andreeson’s six points on why this merger shouldn’t be scary
• Bill Burnham on why the merger is bad

So far, I’m not really sure what value any of those applications bring my Internet user experience or my blog author experience. Stumple upon is kind of fun for killing time, but I don’t need a value-add for killing time. After all, that’s what facebook is for, right? (insert sarcasm)

My issue with so many of these online applications is that they bring no real value to my experience. On the rare occasion that they do, there is a substantial learning curve for use. With all this venture capital money flowing into social networking and online applications, I’m concerned. Are we creating another Frankenstein’s monster; a self-generated, larger-than-life, flawed creature that can’t survive without the guidance and protection of its maker?

For all you computer geeks out there, if you really want to make bank while making a difference in the digital space, focus on ease of use and practical application. Make it real and trendy, but make it useful to more than just the 50,000 early adopters. The rest of us don’t have the time, patience or understanding for it.

UPDATE: Bay Partenrs are actually doing a VC investment experiment called AppFactory. The whole point is to push mini-vc investments into application development. I think there is huge potential, but how do you focus the creative spirit of the developers without breaking their spirits? Without the focus, you are going to end up dumping money into a bunch of small applications that provide no real value to the user. Sure they look cool, but the tech early adopters aren’t a large enough market to warrant a 250k investment.

So far, I’m not really sure what value any of those applications bring my Internet user experience or my blog author experience. Stumple upon is kind of fun for killing time, but I don’t need a value-add for killing time. After all, that’s what facebook is for, right? (insert sarcasm)

My issue with so many of these online applications is that they bring no real value to my experience. On the rare occasion that they do, there is a substantial learning curve for use. With all this venture capital money flowing into social networking and online applications, I’m concerned. Are we creating another Frankenstein’s monster; a self-generated, larger-than-life, flawed creature that can’t survive without the guidance and protection of its maker?

For all you computer geeks out there, if you really want to make bank while making a difference in the digital space, focus on ease of use and practical application. Make it real and trendy, but make it useful to more than just the 50,000 early adopters. The rest of us don’t have the time, patience or understanding for it.

UPDATE: Bay Partenrs are actually doing a VC investment experiment called AppFactory. The whole point is to push mini-vc investments into application development. I think there is huge potential, but how do you focus the creative spirit of the developers without breaking their spirits? Without the focus, you are going to end up dumping money into a bunch of small applications that provide no real value to the user. Sure they look cool, but the tech early adopters aren’t a large enough market to warrant a 250k investment.