dimeperclick.com

Update 1:20 p.m. PST: There’s no price or availability information yet on the stabilized lenses, said Sigma spokeswoman Desiree Gaige, but they’ll likely arrive sometime this summer. The 50-150mm will cost about $1,350, the 70-200mm models $1,420, and the 10-20mm $730, and those probably will be available in the next couple months, she said.

(Credit:
Sigma)

Of eight mainstream lenses the Japanese company announced at the Photo Marketing Association trade show here, three new telephoto lenses include OS. (I’m not counting Sigma’s 200-500mm f/2.8 super-telephoto behemoth as mainsream.)

The APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM is designed for Four-Thirds system cameras.

The three stabilized lenses are the 18-125mm F3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM, the APO 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM, and the APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM.

The APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM is for Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, and Sigma SLRs. It's got optical stabilization built in.

The APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM is for Pentax and Sony SLRs.

(Credit:
Sigma)

The APO 50-150mm F2.8 II EX DC HSM is for Pentax and Sony SLRs.

(Credit:
Sigma)

Sigma also announced two lenses for Four Thirds System SLRs, which are sold by Olympus, Panasonic, and Leica. Those are a wide-angle zoom, the 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM, and the telephoto zoom, the APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM.

Here are some photos and details on the other lenses:

The 18-125mm F3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM has Sigma's optical stabilization technology built in to counteract camera shake. It's for Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, and Sigma SLRs. The stabilization feature doesn't work on Pentax and Sony cameras, which have that built in.

(Credit:
Sigma)

The APO 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM is an optically stabilized model for Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, and Sigma SLRs. Its close-focus distance is 59 inches.

The 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM is for Four-Thirds cameras from Olympus, Panasonic, or Leica.

LAS VEGAS–Sigma, a third-party maker of lenses for SLR (single-lens reflex) cameras, has expanded the range of Optical Stabilization (OS) lenses, those with a moving lens element that can compensate for camera shake.

(Credit:
Sigma)

(Credit:
Sigma)

(Credit:
Sigma)

However, several new 70-200mm telephoto zooms, each with a wide f/2.8 aperture, lack the stabilization feature.

Furniture juggernaut IKEA has its own tools that are a little similar but they’re separated into kitchen, bedroom, and office, and must be downloaded and installed on your machine. In that regard, MyDeco’s got the upper hand since it will run right in your browser as long as you’ve got Flash installed.

I don’t think it’s really a perfect way to simulate the effects of moving actual furniture, but in about 10 minutes I had put together a pretty slick looking pad. Like I mentioned before you can actually purchase items you like through the tool’s sister site, although it’s based in the UK, meaning if you don’t live there you’ll have to track down the local counterparts.

Related:
Floor Planner helps to plan your pad
Best4c does quick and slick charts
Gliffy, the online Visio killer

We’ve covered a ton of floor planners on Webware, but none of them have been as cool as MyDeco. The tool throws in the usual assortment of tables, chairs, beds, and other living accouterments that you can price, purchase, and move around in a customizable space.

[via Delicious]

Create your pad in 3D with MyDeco's floor plan tool. Whether or not you can afford the ritzy additions is another thing.

The tool lets you emulate single rooms or an entire house by plugging in the dimensions and adding walls, windows, and doors. It also manages to give you a 3D view of what those items will look like in that space, not just from the top down like most floor planners. In this mode you can zoom around, or pinpoint any angles using a virtual camera and take snapshots to send to your cohabitants. It’s just plain cool.

(Credit:
CNET Networks)

Content on YouTube, however, doesn’t necessarily become popular because it’s high-quality or original–just look at the Rickroll phenomenon, an ’80s music video that has been seen millions of times because people get a kick out of tricking their friends into watching it. Or the current hot clip, a British public service announcement with a hilarious twist.

The video-sharing service, owned by Google since 2006, awarded accolades in categories like “Adorable,” “Creative,” and “Comedy” to original videos hosted on its site that were uploaded in 2007, as voted on by users. The prizes, per YouTube, are “bragging rights, a trophy, and a special invitation to an event later this year.”

Or, for that matter, this week’s number-one YouTube video: Barack Obama’s most recent speech.

Okay, so the videos are kind of amusing. The “Adorable” category winner is a video of a baby who falls over every time he laughs (wonder what’ll happen when his friends find out about that in 10 years), the “Creative” winner is that “Human Tetris” thing you’ve seen a million times, and the “Music” winner is none other than that “Chocolate Rain” video that everyone was watching last year.

On Friday morning, YouTube announced the second annual iteration of its YouTube Video Awards. What? Awards?

But the culture of YouTube doesn’t really lend itself that well to awards. YouTube, for better or worse, is a cultural hub rather than strictly a creative outpost; there’s plenty of cool, original content there, and it’s no surprise that Google would want to highlight the good stuff rather than the goofy prank videos and pirated content that propelled it to the upper echelon of the Web.

In an interview with my colleague Ina Fried on Wednesday, Bill Gates made clear why Microsoft’s in love with this grand vision of a future “Micro-hoo.”

I’m still not convinced that this won’t turn into a disaster, with all the messy corporate-culture clashes that always attend mergers–but on a massive scale. Still, Gates and Steve Ballmer believe that they can successfully steer clear of the potholes, and they’re willing to put more than $40 billion behind that bet.

They’re also offering Yang a way to exit the stage as a hero to Yahoo shareholders. But the guy is playing hard to get. Last week, we learned about Yahoo’s plans to hand out “golden parachutes” to employees in the event of a change of control. Meanwhile, the rumor mill has Yang speed-dialing every mogul he ever met in hopes of stiff-arming the “Beastmaster” of Fake Steve Jobs fame. (If you want to track all the twists and turns in this story so far, check out our special coverage of the Microsoft-Yahoo events over the last month.)

The clock is ticking down for Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang to unveil Plan B–if he really has one. Microsoft believes that he’s bluffing and plans to pursue this deal through to a conclusion.

Jerry Yang

To be continued.

“The price concession will not necessarily raise the value of the offer above $31 per share, the original value (it’s currently $28.80). Microsoft will argue that its stock is down with the market and that, but for Microsoft’s offer, Yahoo’s stock would be down too. (This will be B.S.–MSFT is down more than the S&P 500–but perhaps Microsoft’s bankers will find some tech index to compare MSFT’s stock to).”

Over at Silicon Alley Insider, Henry Blodget reports that his banking sources say this is a done deal in all but name. He also says Yahoo’s not likely to get Microsoft to substantially raise its offer:

“We think that the combination with Yahoo would accelerate things in a very exciting way, because they do have great engineers, they have done a lot of great work. So if you combine their work and our work, the speed at which you can innovate and get things done is just dramatically more rapid,” Gates said. “So it’s really about the people there that want to join in and create a better search, better portal for a very broad set of customers. That’s the vision that’s behind saying, ‘hey, wouldn’t this be a great combination?’”

To be sure, it’s been a good show, but Yang’s running out of time. He’s had more than a half year to think about what’s next, since replacing Terry Semel in June. If he was planning to unveil a grand plan, events passed him by.

Now I know what you’re thinking — “Sony BMG said it would try to form partnerships with other music distributors, so it wouldn’t just be a Sony service!” Please. Anyone who believes that the rest of the major labels will jump on board and allow one of their major rivals the opportunity to make some cash on their songs should reevaluate their opinion.

Most importantly, I just don’t see how the recording industry could somehow become a major player in the music downloading business. It’s not because there isn’t enough cash — they can thank the artists for that — and the recording industry’s inability to make a dent in the downloading business probably has nothing to do with integration. More than anything else, I simply don’t see how or why consumers would gladly use Sony BMG’s service.

Although this may sound nice on paper — after all, Sony BMG is a major record label with major songs — it makes no sense. Sure, Schmidt-Holtz went on to say that Sony BMG is in discussions with other major music distributors, but if you take a logical look at what’s really going on here, the other labels will never jump on the bandwagon and Sony BMG’s service will die before it even gets started.

Record labels have no business offering music downloading services and the way I see it, they’ll never work. And let’s thank goodness for that.

Why would any other label sign on to this service? The labels already offer DRM-free tunes on Amazon and make a ton of money on iTunes. What sense would it make to sell songs on Sony BMG’s service and standby as a major competitor enjoyed revenue at their expense?

First and foremost, record labels have no business creating music downloading services. Let’s face it — ever since music downloading became a popular commercial enterprise, it wasn’t Apple that tried to stop us from doing what we wanted, how we wanted with our music, it was the record labels.

The RIAA is easily one of the most hated organizations in the world. On top of that, it represents the record labels that are trying to do all they can to get in on the music downloading action. Why would someone use the service of a group of companies they simply can’t stand if they can get the same music elsewhere on an a la carte basis? It just doesn’t make sense.

If there’s no DRM, at least the service would have a leg up on iTunes. But why would anyone even use it if you can only download the handful of worthy songs on the Sony BMG label? Does it make any sense to pay $10 per month for a service that you’ll probably only use once per month and download a handful of songs at a time? I doubt it.

And here’s why:

Knowing this, how exactly would this service work? Would there be DRM? Sony BMG didn’t comment on that, but considering the fact that songs can be played on most major players, I would think not. Then again, the labels are still major DRM proponents, so you never really know what they come up with.

If Sony BMG’s service ever gets off the ground, I’ll be surprised if it has anymore than one record label on its side. The only way for a real major label service to develop is if all parties hold the same vested interest in seeing it do well. And the way it looks, that simply won’t be happening with Sony BMG’s idea.

According to Rolf Schmidt-Holtz, Sony’s online subscription service would allow customers to download an unlimited number of Sony BMG tunes for about $9 to $12 per month. All downloads would also be compatible with every major player on the market, including
Apple’s iPod.

In a surprising announcement out of Sony BMG today, the company’s chief said his company is exploring the possibility of developing its own music downloading service. And while he may believe that it makes sense, I think it’s one of the dumbest things I’ve heard from one of the record labels in a long while.

(Source: Techvideoblog.com via Engadget)

Check out the video and feel free to comment on how revolutionary you think this is–or isn’t.

There’s been some buzz this week around Pixel Qi’s 3qi display technology, which integrates e-paper attributes with LCD to create a versatile and potentially very energy-efficient screen. The idea is that with a flip of a button you can go from a traditional high-resolution color LCD experience to a low-power black and white mode to an even more energy-efficient e-paper mode that allows you to easily view text in bright sunlight.

This week the technology was demonstrated at Computex in Taiwan, and it seems very impressive. If these types of displays can be produced cost-efficiently, they may revolutionize the notebook and e-reader market. We’re probably at least a year away from seeing devices with Pixel Qi’s 3qi displays, but at least the company has some promising prototypes to show off and John Ryan, Pixel Qi’s COO and vice president of sales of marketing, claims the technology is more mature than you’d think.

Additional reading:
PixelQi puts three displays in one

Nokia 3555

(Credit:
Nokia)

T-Mobile is now carrying the Nokia 3555. A slim flip phone in a lovely blue shade, the 3555 looks a lot like AT&T’s Nokia 6555. It offers a midrange selection of features including a VGA camera, stereo Bluetooth, text and multimedia messaging, a speakerphone, voice dialing, a music player, quadband world phone support, personal organizer applications, and a wireless Web browser. Given the other features the inclusion of a VGA camera is a little odd, but even stranger is the dualband WCDMA (3G) support. T-Mobile has promised us a 3G network by this summer, but considering we first heard that 2007 would be the launch year, we’re not holding our breath. However, since the carrier continues to introduce 3G-capable handsets, we figure something will happen before too long. The 3555 is a reasonable $149, but you can get it for as little as $49 if you buy it online.

Read the full post

“Today we’re comfortable with the rapid dissemination of information and ideas from one side of the globe to the other. What’s in Tokyo today can be in Tehran tomorrow and vice versa. When physical things reach a certain size — being pocketable seems about right, their ability to be picked up and moved around increases considerably. All things being equal small objects much like ideas, travel further, travel faster. They are put into bags, pockets and inevitably are introduced to people in far off lands. And if those people in far off lands like and value them enough, the container ships follow.”

(Credit: Jan Chipchase)

Jan Chipchase, a researcher for Nokia, observes how small things are likely to spread more rapidly than big ones, resembling ideas rather than things:

Talk to the hand. Not all streaming video channels are fun to watch.

Track Yahoo Live’s progress on the site’s blog.

One of the really cool features of Yahoo Live is its multi-camera viewing panel. In addition to the video feed you tune in to, four other video channels–of other people watching the same stream you are–appear below the main video. You can jump to those channels quickly, and change the lineup of the secondary video channels by selecting names from the main video’s chat window.

Yahoo is launching the service with an API, allowing people to mash up their own streaming video services. That’s very cool, and unusually forthcoming. Most services don’t go public with APIs, if ever, until the site has been live for a little while.

No word yet on how Google/YouTube will react, or whether a mobile version will appear.

Yahoo dropped on Thursday night a new service on the world: Yahoo Live. Conceptually it’s very much like uStream and other live video-streaming products. Anyone can set up a video channel and embed the player (though, oddly, not the text chat that goes with it) on their own page.

See also: Justin.TV, Kyte, Qik, Flixwagon, Comvu, Mogulus, and Operator11. Care to lay odds on which, if any, can survive independently, or which will get acquired by Google, Facebook, or MySpace?

Unfortunately, Yahoo Live launched with a serious capacity deficit. I had the service go from functional to “our servers are smoking” several times when the user count broke about 800. Hey, Yahoo: This is why the private beta was invented. If you don’t want to put Yahoo-sized capacity into a new product, don’t pretend that it’s ready for a public viewing.

I think the big question around open source is how do you make money from it? And it’s because the software industry has traditionally been built on an intellectual property licensing model. But the reality of the situation is with the rise of open-source software, developers don’t buy things anymore. [It is] a world where you can go to the Web and download just about anything you could possibly need to put an application into production. So you don’t monetize at the point of acquisition of software any longer, you have to monetize at a different place.

Definitely worth a read.

InfoWorld’s Paul Krill interviewed Ian Murdock at JavaOne and got some good tidbits including Murdocks’ thoughts on making money with open source and the licensing issues associated with CDDL and GPL.