Updated: In the wake of a weekend announcement that the White House wouldn’t support SOPA as written as well as the canceling of the DNS provisions in the bill, the web has shifted attention from the Stop Online Piracy Act to the Protect IP Act. Plus, more and more sites such as Wikipedia and Scribd are joining Reddit, The Cheezburger Network and Tucows in site-wide blackouts set for Wednesday as pressure mounts for others to do the same.

As the politicians change their focus, the web community is struggling to keep up. Update: SOPA bill sponsor Lamar Smith (R-TX) said Tuesday afternoon that the bill will be debated in the House Judiciary Committee sometime in February. Meanwhile the larger issue of protecting intellectual property on the web and the religious war between the content and the Internet industry will likely to continue to rage, no matter what’s said about these bills. But there’s a lot of nuance here, which is what I’ve tried to highlight in the stories I’ve selected below. For those who want to get into a complex issue, dive on in.

Danah Boyd, a social researcher, breaks down the attempts to regulate piracy on the web into two very different issues; piracy as a competitive issue, which she generally (but with caveats) equates with software piracy vs. piracy as a cultural issue, which she equates with media piracy.

As we go deeper into an information age, I think that we need to have serious conversations about what is colloquially termed piracy. We need to distinguish media piracy from software piracy because they’re not the same thing. We need to seriously interrogate fairness and equality, creative production and cultural engagement. And we need to seriously take into consideration why people do what they do. I strongly believe that when people work en masse to route around a system, the system is most likely the thing that needs the fixing, not the people.

Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, is concerned that passing SOPA and PIPA will continue the U.S. exportation of IP laws to other countries and force them to answer for IP violations in U.S. courts.

Not only is it likely that the U.S. will begin to incorporate SOPA-like provisions into its IP demands, but SOPA makes it a matter of U.S. law to ensure that intellectual property protection is a significant component of U.S. foreign policy and grants more resources to U.S. embassies around the world to increase their involvement in foreign legal reform.

Ars Technica reports that Paul Brigner, the MPAA’s tech policy chief, said on Tuesday that DNS filtering is off the table in its current form. But Ars wondered if it would be back and quoted Brigner as saying:

“We need more than just following the money and addressing search results.” Brigner said, arguing that the remaining provisions of SOPA and PIPA, which deal with ad networks, payment networks, and search engines, would not satisfy Hollywood. So the MPAA may be back in future sessions of Congress lobbying for DNS filtering or something like it.

Over at The Register, Andrew Orlowski calls Silicon Valley to task for refusing to compromise, or even listen to the issues and concerns of content owners over the years, which has led to the current-day war of mutual destruction over IP. This one may make ardent SOPA suporters angry, but there’s a grain of truth here, although I do wish Orlowski proposed more of a solution. Here’s an excerpt:

For years, copyright industries avoided old-age wrinkles by using enforcement to retain control – working against the grain of technology, rather than with it. Copyright industries are not natural enforcers, when they try it, they’re quite spectacularly clumsy. Take your pick from from an unsavoury list over the years that includes remote kill-switches for media, or creating and distributing millions of spoofed music files containing noise, or plans to insert spyware onto your PC that locks your computer or deletes your music. All pretty dumb. More recently, they’ve started to work with the implications of digital networks: with UltraViolet you buy a license, rather than repeatedly purchasing limited rights over and over again. That’s a step forward.

And it’s the sort of progressive thinking conspicuous by its absense in Silicon Valley, and its armies of ‘copyfighters’. They love the war too much for it to end. And to keep fighting, you must avoid thinking about constructive, mutual agreements.

Finally, Cory Doctorow, author and co-editor at BoingBoing, offers the picture of a war on computing to arise in the future, with this fight over how the digital revolution has changed copyright as only a minor skirmmish. For his dystopian vision, read more here.

The triviality of copyright tells you that when other sectors of the economy start to evince concerns about the Internet and the PC, copyright will be revealed for a minor skirmish—not a war.

Why might other sectors come to nurse grudges against computers in the way the entertainment business already has? The world we live in today is made of computers. We don’t have cars anymore; we have computers we ride in. We don’t have airplanes anymore; we have flying Solaris boxes attached to bucketfuls of industrial control systems. A 3D printer is not a device, it’s a peripheral, and it only works connected to a computer. A radio is no longer a crystal: it’s a general-purpose computer, running software. The grievances that arise from unauthorized copies of Snooki’s Confessions of a Guidette are trivial when compared to the calls-to-action that our computer-embroidered reality will soon create.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• SOPA, OPEN and the fight for the Internet
• Forecast: global mobile subscribers, 2010–2015
• Beyond social: the crowd-based enterprise

src='http://ads.gigaom.com/show/rss/'
alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

With the Stop Online Privacy Act, or SOPA, Congress is preparing to destroy the web, or perhaps this is just another battle between the content industry and the web world being fought in the legislature. However this is categorized, the technology industry has unified against this issue in a way that I’ve not seen before– even during the network neutrality debates.

For those wondering what the hubbub is about or perhaps why their Tumblr blog is blacked out today, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has a good explanation here, here and here. In short, there are two resolutions wending their way through the House and Senate that aim to stop online piracy by blocking or changing the DNS entry for sites that willfully infringe on copyright. It also puts the responsibility on hosting providers, search engines and even payments companies to act in stopping infringing material.

On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on the issue with five people representing the content industry and one from Google. The web has been in overdrive during the last 24 hours registering opinions, statements and speculations about the proposed law. We’ve gathered a sample from various sources to help readers get a feel for the comments out there and see the big picture. Happy reading.

A Question For SOPA Supporters: How Will You Gauge SOPA’s Success? (Techdirt)

If the intention of this legislation is to provide enforcement for copyright, my belief is that there should be some sort of metric or guideline to gauge its success. Without some sort of measurement in place, the very real possibility is that the enforcement efforts will continue to expand in scope and cause more and more collateral damage.

So, in all honesty, I’d like to open this thread to supporters of SOPA. I’d like to know how you’d measure the success of this legislation.

Are SOPA sponsors about to make themselves felons? Probably not. (Ars Technica)

Whatever else you might say about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it has been litigated to death, and that has given websites a pretty clear idea of what they need to do to qualify for its safe harbor. The Stop Online Piracy Act would upset the apple cart by exposing websites to new legal risks based on poorly defined concepts like “sites dedicated to theft of US property.”

Angel Investors and Venture Capitalists Say They Will Stop Funding Some Internet Start-Up Business Models if Tough New Rules Are Enacted (Booz & Co )

More than 80 percent of the angel investors would prefer to invest in a risky, weak economy (with the current internet regulations) vs. a strong economy (but with the new, more stringent proposed regulations on copyright infringement). But, if the legal framework for digital content was clarified, and penalties on copyright infringement were limited for content providers acting in good faith, the pool of angels interested in investing would increase by nearly 115 percent.

Chief Sponsor Wavers on Internet Censorship Bill in Charged Hearing (Wired)

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), one the chief sponsors of the bill, expressed uncertainty over allowing the Justice Department to obtain court orders demanding that American ISPs prevent users from visiting blacklisted websites. ISPs receiving such orders would have to alter records in the net’s system for looking up website names, known as DNS.

The House bill also allows the Justice Department to order search sites like Google to remove an allegedly “rogue” site from its search results.

Piracy legislation battle heats up (Variety)

Lobbying over the legislation has been fierce. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, showbiz has spent $ 91.8 million on lobbying for all issues this year, compared to $ 91.5 million by computer and Internet firms. The figures were as of the end of October.

Issa: Congress using Google as ‘piñata’ (The Hill)

Issa said lawmakers are beginning to realize they can’t just blame Google for the problem of online piracy, and predicted legislation opposed by Silicon Valley giants including Google, Facebook and eBay is doomed because Republican leaders will realize the damage it would do to the knowledge-based economy.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Report: Monetizing Digital Content
• Dissecting the data: 5 issues for our digital future
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution

src='http://ads.gigaom.com/show/rss/'
alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

Early reviews of Amazon’s Kindle Fire tablet appeared on Monday, in advance of the device being received by customers. A mixed bag of impressions round out the reviews, which isn’t surprising because of the varying use cases for Amazon’s 7-inch Android tablet. Some are comparing it to the Apple iPad, which makes sense to a point, although few will be likely to own both devices. The iPad offers far more capabilities due to the larger display and wider range of third-party apps. Amazon’s Kindle Fire has fewer functions, but to some, can perform those admirably at less than half the price.

The timing of the reviews coincide with my own decision to pre-order a Kindle Fire just yesterday: I explained my decision-making process of the Fire over the Nook Tablet here. If I like the Kindle Fire, I’ll end up selling my current 7-inch slate, a Samsung Galaxy Tab. But as I pointed out in my article, I don’t think consumers looking for a low-cost media tablet can wrong with either e-reading tablet. Yet, discussion around the web seems pretty polarizing between the Fire and Nook Tablet today, based on the initial reviews.

At MSNBC, Wilson Rothman loved the device and thinks Apple should be concerned that it has no similar form factor device to compete in the category. I’ve long craved a 7-inch iOS tablet for greater portability over the 9.7-inch iPad, but so far, it’s just a unicorn. Rothman points out that the Kindle Fire’s main features work well enough to provide an Apple-like experience:

I’ve had it [Kindle Fire] since Thursday — reading, watching video, listening to music, checking email, even playing some games — and I can say it’s tight. Turn it on and you know what to do, like with an Apple product. So much like an Apple product that Apple should be scared.

Over at the Chicago Sun-Times, Andy Ihnatko continues the Apple versus Amazon theme in his detailed review. Although Ihnatko sees room for improvement in the user interface of the Fire, he notes that with Amazon’s ecosystem, you get a capable device for $ 199. And buyers may find themselves in one of these two camps instead of choosing an alternative Android tablet:

The Fire is a marvelous device. And Apple and Amazon couldn’t have created a more complementary pair of tablets if they’d colluded on it. Want a tablet that does everything, and which does books exceptionally well? Buy an iPad. Want something more compact, and you’re not terribly interested in much more than content consumption? The Fire is aces. I feel as if every potential tablet consumer will recognize themselves in one of those two descriptions.

Not everyone is impressed by Amazon’s new tablet, however. Jon Philips of Wired offers a mostly negative writeup of the Kindle Fire suggesting the 7-inch screen is “too small for any semblance of an immersive reading experience.” After reading dozens of Kindle books on my 7-inch Galaxy Tab, I wholeheartedly disagree and wonder if Philips has ever read a book on a smartphone, where it’s even more cramped. Other than video playback, Philips just wasn’t impressed by the device’s functionality, saying:

At the end of the day, the Fire must be judged by how well it executes in terms of its Newsstand, Books, Video, Apps and Web features. It does nothing very well, save video playback, running various Android apps, and making the business of Amazon shopping alarmingly fun and easy. If you already have $ 200 in your high-tech hardware slush fund, and you’re not willing to splurge one cent more, I suggest you wait longer before pulling the trigger on a tablet. Let that nest egg build. Let it grow interest. Wait for the Kindle Fire 2. Or — yes, I’m going to go there — consider an iPad.

There’s no lack of other reviews today and once my own Kindle Fire arrives, I’ll share my impressions. And of course, the Barnes & Noble Nook Tablet for $ 249 also arrives later this week, giving consumers another low-cost media tablet option. Between that forthcoming device and today’s reviews, commentary on Twitter is all over the map. Here’s a small sampling of the more interesting tweets I read today.

Follow @davezatz@davezatz
Dave Zatz

After reading the Kindle Fire reviews, I no longer have much interest in the device. Will stick with my smartphone and second gen Kindle.

about 4 hours ago via SeesmicReplyRetweetFavorite

Follow @ldignan@ldignan
Larry Dignan

Amazon will sell a ton of Kindle Fires, it's an impulse buy device zdnet.com/blog/btl/amazo… techme.me/CIF2

about 10 hours ago via Tweet ButtonReplyRetweetFavorite

Follow @willfanguy@willfanguy
Will Fanguy

#KindleFire: @Gizmodo loves it, @wired hates it, @engadget says "meh". Still waiting to see it side-by-side with a Nook Tablet.

about 6 hours ago via Twitter for AndroidReplyRetweetFavorite

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• What Amazon’s new Kindle line means for Apple, Netflix and online media
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Connected Consumer Q3: Netflix fumbles; Kindle Fire shines

src='http://ads.gigaom.com/show/rss/'
alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

Facebook co-founder  and CEO Mark Zuckerberg returned to Harvard University on Monday to talk to a few hundred select computer science majors. But first, he did a drive-by for local media, 300 or 400 of whom packed the Harvard Yard venue. And by drive-by, I mean just that. He took maybe three (largely inaudible) questions.

Here’s what was asked and answered:

Why did Zuckerberg come to MIT and Harvard this week? “There are a lot of smart people here, some of whom are deciding where they want to work.” Will Facebook open an office in the area as Google and Microsoft have done? “Hopefully at some point soon …  but no immediate plans.” What’s next for the social networking giant? “The last five years have been about getting people signed up and connected but the next five and ten years there will be a lot of products and industries that can be rethought now that you have this base of connections.”

Not a lot of meat there. But some of the takeaways from Harvard students who stopped by the Q&A — they couldn’t get tickets to the main event — were more interesting.

• Zuckerberg, not Gates, not even the Google guys, is The Man.
  Zuckerberg, by virtue of Facebook’s huge popularity, by virtue of Hollywood’s The Social Network, is the go-to tech guy for this crowd. Apple’s Steve Jobs was cool. Seeing Bill Gates “would probably be awesome too,” but Zuckerberg “is one of us,” said one freshman at the event.  As for the Google guys? Impressive, but none of three freshman interviewed could name either Sergey Brin or Larry Page. But then again, the Google guys didn’t go to Harvard and were not featured in a major motion picture.

• Did The Social Network  make you hate Zuckerberg?
  The consensus was that Movie Mark did come across as a jerk, “but then you went home and used Facebook and you didn’t care anymore,”  said Joseph Botros, a freshman from Terre Haute, Indiana.

• What did you learn about Zuckerberg from this event?
  “That he’s real,” said Emily Mistick, a freshman from Pittsburgh. That he wants to hire computer science majors not liberal arts students, said another student who did not provide her name and is in the latter camp. She and some others griped about how tickets to the closed computer-science-student-only event were awarded.

• Would you leave Harvard to attempt a startup?
  Maybe, if it was something really cool, although that might be a problem for the parents. “I think they’d be okay with taking a semester or a year off,” said Botros. But dropping out entirely? Ummm, probably not acceptable.

The Boston-Cambridge metro area has been in a tizzy after comments Zuckerberg made last week that indicated he would keep Facebook in Boston if he were starting it up today. Local tech companies and venture capitalists — who always seem a bit cowed by Silicon Valley’s tech might — clearly took that as validation that Boston can play in the big leagues. (Zuckerberg also spoke earlier at a similar event at MIT.)

Later, an attendee of the closed Harvard event said it was packed and there were questions (submitted before hand) about nitty-gritty coding issues, the state of tech startups in general, and about it’s like to work at Facebook specifically.

And for those who didn’t get enough Zuck from his cameo appearance at Harvard, buck up:  He’ll be on Charlie Rose tonight with Facebook COO Cheryl Sandberg.

Photo courtesy of Rose Lincoln, Harvard Public Affairs & Communications.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• NewNet Q2: Google closes the quarter with a bang
• Infrastructure Q3: OpenStack and flash step into the spotlight
• Connected Consumer Q2: Digital music meets the cloud; e-book growth explodes

src='http://ads.gigaom.com/show/rss/'
alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

The iPhone 4S is due out Friday, Oct. 14, but already the early reviews are pouring in. They’re easy to sum up (people like it) but it’s also worth zooming in on some of the individual takes from the better reviews popping up around the web to get a sense of what exactly is and isn’t pleasing about Apple’s latest.

David Pogue of the New York Times  says Siri, Apple’s new voice-powered virtual assistant, is so good it has demoted the on-screen keyboard to “a glorified Plan B,” but he also reveals some interesting tidbits about how much it owes to voice recognition software company Nuance:

Apple won’t admit that it’s using a version of Dragon Dictation, the free iPhone app, but there doesn’t seem to be much doubt; it works and behaves identically. (For example, it occasionally seems to process your utterance but then types nothing at all, just as the Dragon app does.) This version is infinitely better, though, because it’s a built-in keyboard button, not a separate app.

Like Pogue and many other reviewers, Walt Mossberg of AllThingsD  focused on Siri in his appraisal. Mossberg’s reaction to Siri is generally more level-headed than Pogue’s, and in fact, early on he sums up his take on the 4S in general in very moderate tones:

Despite Siri, the iPhone 4S isn’t a dramatic game-changer like some previous iPhones. Some new features are catch-ups to competitors. I sense Apple chose to focus more on software and cloud service than on hardware. But, in my tests, the iPhone 4S performed very well. It’s a better iPhone for the same $ 199 entry price, at a time when some competitors are pricing their flagship smartphones starting at $ 299.

Macworld editor Jason Snell dives headlong into the issue of cellular signal attenuation, which was a problem with the iPhone 4′s design. He talks about the extensive media storm that surrounded, and then notes that Apple seems to have paid attention:

In all my tests, the old iPhone 4 “death grip” had no impact on the speed of cellular downloads on the iPhone 4S, nor did a reverse grip at the top of the phone. Only when I took both hands and performed a “death grip” that covered the entire phone (or at least touched all four corners of the phone simultaneously) did I see any signal attenuation.

Joshua Topolsky of This is My Next looks at the classic body design of the iPhone 4S (which is the same as the iPhone 4, unless you look very, very closely) and finds nothing wanting about it:

That said, the iPhone 4 design does stand the test of time (or 16 months in this case). Compared with most (if not all) of its Android  competition, this industrial design looms tall. Though enthusiasts might be bored of seeing the same hardware for more than a year, this still feels like the phone to beat in the looks department. The glass back — while incredibly prone to shattering on impact — feels as sleek and sexy as ever. The metal antenna and solid, machined buttons feel high-end, expensive even. If this were a car, it would be a Mercedes.

TechCrunch‘s MG Siegler notes that despite some disappointed reactions from onlookers, this is definitely “the best iPhone yet,” and starts off his review with a focus on the things that make that true. His first subject of praise is the new dual-core A5 processor:

Apps that used to take a longer time to perform a task — applying a filter in Camera+, for example — now work much faster. More generally, every app seems to load quite a bit faster. The best way to see this is to load the Settings app that is built into iOS. On the iPhone 4, it can take up to 3 seconds to load. On the iPhone 4S, it loads in less than a second. And the 4S is faster at switching between apps when multi-tasking.

Finally, Vincent Nguyen at SlashGear expresses some shutterbug love for the new iPhone 4S’s improved 8-megapixel rear camera. Discussing the improved sensor, as well as the refined aperture and new infrared filter, he says:

Does it all work? You bet it does. There are two noticeable improvements – quality and speed – and the best thing is that they’re clearly evident from the start. Sharpness and detail are significantly boosted in the iPhone 4S when compared to what the iPhone 4 can achieve; there’s less noise and less color bleed evident. Aberrations such as fringing around the edges of the frame are cut right back, a benefit of that five-lens array.

So is the iPhone 4S a hit? Judging by the tone of these reviews, I’d say it definitely is. Almost all start out talking about the unrealistic expectations that observers had for the iPhone 5 ahead of launch, and then go on to explain why those expectations don’t matter, and why Apple has managed to hit one out of the park yet again. Bottom line: No matter which phone you’re upgrading from, you’re sure to find something that makes you feel good about the decision.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The future of mobile: a segment analysis by GigaOM Pro
• Flash analysis: Steve Jobs
• Millennials in the enterprise, part 1: strategies for supporting the new digital workforce

src='http://ads.gigaom.com/show/rss/'
alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

Netflix backtracked on its plans to separate its DVD-by-mail and streaming services and re-brand the DVD business Qwikster. So far Wall Street analysts have been largely supportive of the move, although Netflix stock is down modestly in mid-afternoon trading after opening higher this morning.

Morgan Stanley analyst Scott DeVitt was mostly positive on the move, saying in a research note Monday that getting rid of Qwikster removes some short-term friction for Netflix customers who wouldn’t want to manage two separate accounts. It also lets Netflix continue to take advantage of its bundled offering. DeVitt wrote:

“By recanting its decision to create two semi-autonomous brands (one for DVD-by-mail and another for its growing streaming business), Netflix is not only showing its sub base a ‘good faith gesture’ but it is also back to leveraging one of its most powerful assets, its cross-platform recommendation algorithm. We believe this is a step in the right direction for the business model and should be viewed favorably by the market.”

JP Morgan analyst Doug Anmuth wrote in a research note that Netflix will be able to continue operating streaming and DVD businesses separately internally with the split being “mostly opaque to customers.” Anmuth also expects that the company will be able to turn things around after facing some short-term pain:

“We recognize that Netflix results will not turn around quickly and the company has lost a considerable amount of goodwill with consumers. However, we remain positive on the shares as we expect solid domestic growth to resume in 2012 once churn normalizes and we believe the stock assigns little credit for international potential going forward.”

“Subscriber attrition/churn likely continued to meaningfully worsen following the company’s mid-September pre-announcement that its 3Q ending subs would be 1 million lower than anticipated,” Stern Agee analyst Arvind Bhatia wrote in a research note Monday morning. Bhatia also wrote that the change in Netflix’s plans makes it unlikely that the company will sell off either its DVD or streaming businesses in the short term.

Ingrid Chung of Goldman Sachs disagrees with the assumption that Netflix saw additional churn as a reaction to the Qwikster announcement, instead believing the Netflix line that the about-face is due to a humbled management attempting to reduce “high friction” points and “mitigate the… lack of integration.” She wrote:

“We view this as a significant positive for the following reasons: (1) Better visibility into 4Q subscriber metrics –- if the company had gone ahead and divided the websites and customer queues, we believe they could have lost the majority of the 12 mn hybrid subscribers (representing roughly half of US subscribers) the company currently has. Todayʼs move means that the number of 4Q subscribers will be relatively similar to the number of 3Q subscribers; and (2)Management is listening to its customers (finally) and working to fix its relationship with customers.”

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Ross Catrow

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• What Amazon’s new Kindle line means for Apple, Netflix and online media
• Connected Consumer Q2: Digital music meets the cloud; e-book growth explodes
• Connected Consumer Market Overview, Q2 2010

src='http://ads.gigaom.com/show/rss/'
alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

Steve Jobs, the co-founder and chief visionary who turned Apple from an also-ran in the computer industry into one of the most valuable companies in the world, passed away on Wednesday after a long battle with cancer. The web — and social media such as Twitter — immediately turned into a real-time expression of sorrow and gratitude to Apple’s CEO for his creativity and genius. From the luminaries of Silicon Valley such as Bill Gates and Ethernet creator Bob Metcalfe to ordinary Apple users, the outpouring of thoughts and memories came in a flood. Here’s a selection of what some people had to say about Jobs.

Microsoft founder and former CEO Gates, who also posted on his blog (for more thoughts from Jobs’ Silicon Valley contemporaries, see my colleague Erica Ogg’s post), said on Twitter that:

For those of us lucky enough to get to work with Steve, it’s been an insanely great honor. I will miss Steve immensely.

Bob Metcalfe, who helped develop the Ethernet standard, said: “Alas, Steve Jobs has died. May he rest in peace. What are we going to do now, without his insanely greatness?” And then later, Metcalfe added: “now the people around me in this Colorado bar are having to watch a grown man cry as he types this on his iPad.” Marc Benioff, founder and CEO of Salesforce, said: “I’m so sad. It’s such a terrible loss. For the whole world. I’ll never forget him. He did so much for me.”

President Barack Obama’s staff also took to their official Twitter account to send their thoughts, saying: “Rest in peace, Steve Jobs. From all of us at #Obama2012, thank you for the work you make possible every day — including ours.” And Andy Carvin, the NPR digital editor who turned Twitter into a one-man newswire with reports from the revolutions in Egypt and throughout the Arab world over the past year, said that his massive Twitter stream was filled with comments about the passing of Apple’s founder:

Follow @acarvin@acarvin
Andy Carvin

Right now I'm seeing tweets from Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, all united by one thing: #RIPstevejobs.

about 2 hours ago via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite

Huffington Post founder and now AOL executive Arianna Huffington said on Twitter that “My thoughts go out to Steve Jobs’ family and friends. Thank you for changing our world,” while Demand Media CEO and founder Richard Rosenblatt said: “I am sad; just teared up when I heard steve jobs died; a true inspiration and the CEO I admired most with no real number 2. Farewell.” John Hodgman, the comedian and author who starred as the PC in Apple’s advertising campaign, said that “Everything good I have done, I have done on a Mac.”

A number of those responding to Jobs’ death compared him to some of the great inventors of all time, including Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and Leonardo da Vinci. Jeff Jarvis, the author of a book about Google and a journalism professor at New York University, said that “We have lost our Gutenberg, Edison, Picasso, Carnegie….,” while Silicon Valley M&A executive Andrew Siegel said: “Our Edison, our Elvis. RIP.” And Dave Cohn of Spot.us said that Steve Jobs was the closest thing to da Vinci that he could think of:

Follow @Digidave@Digidave
David Cohn

Steve Jobs will be the Leonardo da Vinci of our time. I cannot think of anyone who comes closer to that description in the last 100 years.

about 2 hours ago via webReplyRetweetFavorite

Others focused on Jobs’ influence outside of just technology: writer Nicholas Thurkettle said that “People who speak of Steve Jobs’s legacy in tech terms are missing the story. Tech was the medium. Jobs was a philosopher.” Monty Ashley said “There goes a man who invented the modern world.” And former MySpace president Jason Hirschhorn said: “Jobs’ influence on product design, commerce and overall brand experiences is far more vast than the consumer technology industry.”

Some who heard the news were just sad: Gizmodo writer Mat Honan said “Literally sick to my stomach from the news about Steve Jobs passing away.” And Delicious founder Joshua Schachter said simply: “iSad.” But tech blogger Joel Johnson said: “I can’t be sad. Steve Jobs didn’t get as much time as he should have, but god damn did he make the most of it.” Jobs was even celebrated by a parody account — the supposed Twitter account of Harry Potter character Severus Snape, who said: “RIP Steve Jobs. You truly were a wizard among Muggles.”

Peter Merholz, who founded Adaptive Path, noted that “SJ was directly involved in 5 revolutions – -personal computer, WIMP GUI, Pixar, iPod/iTunes, iPhone/IPad. It’s an astonishing legacy.” And Hunter Walk, director of product management at Google, said that “Beyond the products, Jobs gift to world is the next generation of innovators he inspired.” Stewart Alsop, a venture capitalist with Alsop Louie Partners, said : “I’m so sad that Steve Jobs is gone. And so lucky that I lived my life in his time and his industry.”

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Millennials in the enterprise, part 1: strategies for supporting the new digital workforce
• NewNet Q2: Google closes the quarter with a bang
• A 2011 NewNet Forecast

src='http://ads.gigaom.com/show/rss/'
alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

Starz announced Thursday that it had reached an impasse in renewal talks for the digital streaming deal it has with Netflix, and that its content will disappear from the streaming service next March. That’s sent many investors heading for the exits, as Netflix stock has been down 8-10 percent since the announcement went out. But what do Wall Street analysts think?

On the whole, analysts acknowledged that the percentage of titles that Starz represents in the Netflix library is relatively small. However, the library includes new movie content from Sony and Disney, which could affect subscribers’ perception of the overall quality of the service. Furthermore, the non-renewal highlights the continued challenge that Netflix faces as it seeks to strike deals with potential partners: higher content costs.

But don’t take our word for it… Here are selected snippets from various Wall Street analyst reports:

Doug Anmuth, JP Morgan:

“Despite Starz content from Disney and Sony representing some of the highest quality film content on Netflix’s streaming service, we believe Netflix has seen little overall pushback from subscribers since Sony content was pulled from the service more than 2 months ago in the related, but separate dispute between Sony and Starz… Our current 2012 estimates factor in a ~$ 300M/yr Starz deal. In the event that Netflix cannot acquire a similar amount of content from alternative content providers, we could see a gross profit increase, though revenue and subscriber growth could be dampened by lower overall content appeal.”

Ingrid Chung, Goldman Sachs:

“We would view any weakness in Netflix as a buying opportunity for the following reasons: (1) Starz content accounted for a small and declining percentage of viewership (8% of US streaming hours currently going to 5%-6% in 1Q2012); (2) Netflix’s subscriber growth has not been negatively impacted by losing Sony content 2 months ago… (4) Netflix now has 6 months to find content to fill the potential void; and (5) We view the lowered valuation as very compelling compared to other fast growing, disruptive Internet companies and its addressable market.”

Scott Devitt, Morgan Stanley:

“We believe Netflix is now going through a new phase in which the company is 1) seeing rising content costs, 2) increasing spend on international expansion, 3) approaching law of large numbers in US, and 4) the effects of a price increase. While Netflix is showing financial discipline and it should be able to acquire other content with the money it would have paid to Starz, Netflix is also becoming more of a TV distributor than a movie distributor. Is this bad? We don’t know, but it is different. While Netflix stated that Starz accounted for 8% of streaming hours, we believe the number is closer to 15%, including Sony content.”

Brian Fitzgerald, UBS:

“The real impact… is very likely materially higher because Starz offers lots of new and original programming content that Netflix members like. Our analysis showed that 22 of the 100 currently most popular streaming titles on Netflix were from the Starz catalog. Given the still earlier state of its streaming library, we think the loss of this content will surely affect the quality of Netflix’s streaming service – potentially pushing NFLX deeper into the long tail and /or requiring them to bid for replacement content in a market with rising prices.”

Richard Greenfield, BTIG:

“The overall Netflix film void would be hard to fill – Epix’s content (Paramount, Lionsgate and MGM) is nowhere near as exciting as Sony/Disney (remember several of the biggest Paramount movies do not go to Epix, such as the Transformer franchise) and while Relativity is adding some good content, ‘fresh’ movies will certainly decrease on Netflix next year without a Starz renewal… To the extent Netflix is morphing into a TV rerun service, movies are becoming less and less important and this frees up capital to spend even more aggressively on TV content which is easier to license than movies and distinguishes it from traditional pay TV services such as HBO, Showtime and Starz.”

Photo courtesy of Flickr user echiner1.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A 2011 Connected Consumer Forecast
• Connected Consumer Q4: New Platforms and OTT’s Dynamic Duo Dominated
• Connected Consumer Tuned In to TVs in Q4

src='http://ads.gigaom.com/show/rss/'
alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

The Department of Justice’s move to block the AT&T-T-Mobile merger has thrown a major wrench in the $ 39 billion acquisition, which is far from derailed, but is much more uncertain now that the DOJ is suing to stop the deal. Many have stood up and decried the merger saying it was anti-competitive but there always seemed to be a sense that AT&T would somehow get the deal done.

Now, there’s a lot of questions about what happens next and renewed vigor from the anti-merger faction, which feels vindicated by the DOJ’s intervention. The FCC will ultimately have to decide what happens here so we still have a ways to go. Here’s a sampling of what the Web is saying:

Sascha Segan, columnist for PC Magazine said the DOJ action was a welcome surprise for consumers used to corporations getting their way. He said the outcome came about through the relentless pounding of average citizens and the tremendous arrogance of AT&T, which acted as if the merger was a done deal.

… the U.S. Department of Justice made a huge stand for the American people today, seeing through AT&T’s lies and its acres of Astrotuf and saying: this has got to stop. Mega-mergers won’t create jobs. Fewer choices don’t mean lower prices. AT&T’s promises of better 4G are just that, only promises. Not guarantees.

Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge, a non-profit that fights for the digital media rights of citizens, called the DOJ action the best Labor Day present anyone can give to the American people.

AT&T’s effort to recreate ‘Ma Cell’ by holding rural broadband hostage and threatening American jobs deserves nothing but scorn. The FCC should move as quickly as possible to follow the lead of the Department of Justice and reject the merger.

AT&T, predictably, was surprised and disappointed by the DOJ’s move and said it would work to expedite a hearing on the matter. The carrier, which could be on the hook for billions of dollars if the merger doesn’t go through, said it expects to prevail at trial.

This merger will:

• Help solve our nation’s spectrum exhaust situation and improve wireless service for millions.
• Allow AT&T to expand 4G mobile broadband to another 55 million Americans, or 97% of the population;
• Result in billions of additional investment and tens of thousands of jobs, at a time when our nation needs them most.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who must still help decide the fate of the merger, said the FCC’s review of the deal is not complete but has already raised concerns about the impact to competition.

Vibrant competition in wireless services is vital to innovation, investment, economic growth and job creation, and to drive our global leadership in mobile. Competition fosters consumer benefits, including more choices, better service and lower prices.

Dan Frommer of SplatF warned that a failed merger wouldn’t necessarily benefit consumers as much as they might imagine. He said the blocking a merger won’t necessarily help with call quality and doesn’t necessarily address the changes already underway as Internet services disrupt voice and SMS. And he said blocking the deal wipes out major concessions the government could have gotten from AT&T that would have been pro-consumer such as requiring AT&T to offer reasonable wholesale access to its networkor requiring AT&T to allow its subscribers to install any applications they want on their phones.

Sure, the government looks bold here, standing up to the big, bad phone company. That has to be worth something going into an election cycle. But is blocking the merger outright really what’s best for consumers? Maybe not.

Sprint, meanwhile, played up the ruling saying it was a win for consumers. Vonya B. McCann, senior vice president of Government Affairs for Sprint said the DOJ has put consumers first in its decision to file against the merger.

Sprint applauds the DOJ for conducting a careful and thorough review and for reaching a just decision – one which will ensure that consumers continue to reap the benefits of a competitive U.S. wireless industry. Contrary to AT&T’s assertions, today’s action will preserve American jobs, strengthen the American economy, and encourage innovation.

Senator Al Franken (D-Minn), a vocal critic of the deal who previously requested the DOJ and the FCC to reject the merger, reacted with pleasure at the news, saying the merger was always set up to be a terrible deal for consumers.

I’ve heard from families across Minnesota that cell phone expenses are an ever-rising percentage of their bills each month, and this merger could make wireless bills increase by as much as 25 percent—a burden families certainly don’t need in this tough economy.  This merger would also hurt competition and concentrate enormous power in the hands of just two companies—AT&T and Verizon—who would control more than 80 percent of the wireless market.  I’m glad the Justice Department recognizes that this merger would hurt consumers and I hope that the court will agree and block it from moving forward.

But it’s not over for AT&T yet. Analyst Robert Enderle tweeted that the deal could still get done.

On the AT&T T-Mobile merger, given two other market competitors and T-Mobile coverage and AT&T capacity issues, AT&T could still prevail.

And as Zach Epstein of Boy Genius Report points out humorously on Twitter that AT&T’s going to be fine.

Don’t worry guys, AT&T will be ok without T-Mobile. Pricing tablets at $ 700 on contract will definitely lighten the load on its network.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Growing Mobile Data Use Turned Up Heat on Carriers in Q3
• Mobile payments: forecasts, technologies and opportunities
• Mobile Q1: All Eyes on Tablets, T-Mobile and AT&T

src='http://ads.gigaom.com/show/rss/'
alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

Steve Jobs dropped a bombshell on the tech world Wednesday night, when the iconic founder and CEO of Apple Corp. announced that he was stepping down as chief executive because he could “no longer meet [his] duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO.” The news sent shock waves through Twitter and the blogosphere as tech-industry heavyweights and ordinary Apple fans alike expressed their feelings of shock and sadness at Jobs’ departure. As Om said in his post, although Jobs remains chairman of Apple, it is the end of an era (Erica Ogg also has a post about what Apple might look like under its new CEO Tim Cook).

Here’s a selection of some of the other responses to Jobs’ announcement:

Marc Benioff, chairman and CEO of Salesforce, said that:

Steve Jobs is the greatest leader our industry has ever known. Its the end of an era.

Long-time Wall Street analyst turned merchant banker Frank Quattrone said on Twitter:

Follow @FrankQuattrone@FrankQuattrone
Frank Quattrone

A salute to Steve Jobs for revolutionizing the computer industry, transforming how we communicate, play and work, and inspiring the world!

about 5 hours ago via webReplyRetweetFavorite

Apple blogger John Gruber said at his blog Daring Fireball that Apple remains the same company it has been for some time, since the transition to new CEO Tim Cook has been fairly obvious ever since Steve Jobs took his last medical leave:

Today’s announcement is just one more step, albeit a big and sad one, in a long-planned orderly transition — a transition that no one wanted but which could not, alas, be avoided. And as ever, he’s doing it his way.

Googler Matt Cutts, the head of the company’s anti-spam team, said on his Google+ page:

Really sad to hear that Steve Jobs is resigning. He’s an incredible guy and has led Apple to launch amazing products that have changed the world. I hope he’ll be okay. Sending good wishes his way.

TheStreet.com founder and CNBC host Jim Cramer said:

Follow @jimcramer@jimcramer
Jim Cramer

Very sad news about Steve Jobs at $ AAPL. He is America's greatest industrialist. Perhaps the greatest ever.

about 7 hours ago via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite

Veteran technology writer Walt Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal said in an essay on Jobs’ departure:

Most people are lucky if they can change the world in one important way, but Jobs, in multiple stages of his business career, changed global technology, media and lifestyles in multiple ways on multiple occasions.

Bill Gurley, a venture capitalist with Benchmark Capital said on Twitter that:

Follow @bgurley@bgurley
Bill Gurley

Steve Jobs run at Apple is likely the very best CEO execution we will see in our lifetime. Amazing.

about 7 hours ago via webReplyRetweetFavorite

Matt Linderman of 37Signals said:

The two greatest runs I’ve ever witnessed in my life: Michael Jordan and Steve Jobs.

And Matt Galligan, former co-founder of SimpleGeo, said:

Steve Jobs will always be an inspiration to me. He turned something plain into something beautiful. And in the process, changed the world.

California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said that:

Follow @Schwarzenegger@Schwarzenegger
Arnold

Steve Jobs is one of California's greatest innovators. Very few achieved his impact over the last 50 years and probably the next 100 years.

about 6 hours ago via Tweetbot for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite

Saul Hansell, former technology writer for the New York Times, called Jobs “The patron saint of perfectionists” in a post at TechCrunch:

We all know lots of people who are nice. We know many people who are smart. We’ve seen a bunch of corporate leaders who have the rare combination of skills to surf the waves spawned by Moore’s Law. But it’s hard to think of anyone besides Steve Jobs who through the sheer force of will, self-confidence, vision and perfectionism could upend the powerful forces of technology to make so many products that delighted so many people.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• GigaOM Euro 20: the European startups to watch
• What the Google-Motorola deal means for Android, Microsoft and the mobile industry
• Mobile payments: forecasts, technologies and opportunities

src='http://ads.gigaom.com/show/rss/'
alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM — Tech News, Analysis and Trends