Create Facebook profile videos with Vine, Boomerang and more

Facebook flipped the switch on profile videos last fall, and now its allowing you to upload those short clips from third-party apps. The social network announced the Facebook Profile Expression Kit at F8, an SDK that will allow app developers to build in tools that allow users to set video creations as a moving profile image. There’s already a handful of apps that support the profile videos during the initial beta phase, including MSQRD, Boomerang from Instagram and Vine. Once you make your video, you’ll now have the option of setting it as your main Facebook profile visual with just a few taps.

Source: Facebook

Mevo is the first camera with live Facebook video

Facebook is making it easier to stream live video from any device, but what about getting one of those devices? Don’t worry, as Livestream is stepping up to the plate. It just revealed that Mevo (formerly Movi) is the first camera with integrated Facebook Live streaming. The move not only simplifies the process of hopping online, but gives you a wide audience right from the get-go — anyone who follows you on Facebook. Of course, you can still share directly through Livestream (other services are in the pipeline) if you’re not tied to one social network.

Aside from that, the Mevo’s selling point is its smart, on-the-fly editing. The 4K cam automatically detects objects (such as faces) and lets you switch between virtual camera angles either on its own or manually, through the mobile app. If everything goes smoothly, it’ll look like you have an elaborate multi-camera setup even when you’re the only person in the room. The big catch is simply the battery life: you’re limited to an hour of recording unless you get an add-on that brings another 10 hours.

Livestream’s camera ships in July for a hefty $399, although you can save $100 if you pre-order it now. That’s expensive if you’re just looking to document your personal adventures (you’re probably better off using only your phone). Mevo is more for video bloggers, businesses and anyone else that wants to produce professional-looking live video without a studio’s worth of equipment.

Via: Business Insider

Source: Mevo

There’s no perfect equation for getting laid in the Tinder age

Last July, I joined Grindr and things started off strong. I had a few good screws, a handful of hot dates and an intense summer fling. I saw more action in six months than I’d seen in the past three years. I was winning and a computer was helping me do it.

Then, after an eight-day trip to Las Vegas this past January, all the action dried up.

I’d seen everything that Grindr had to offer and was growing weary of unsolicited dick pics and random old balls. So I turned to Tinder and had a couple failed dates. The first was a disgruntled state worker who wore Tom’s, winced when I told him I had two pitbulls and spent the better part of two hours mansplaining ethics to me. The next was a waifish first-year English teacher and self-professed INFJ who, curiously, didn’t do a lot of reading due to his workload.

I powered through, reminded of months of success, but couldn’t help thinking of my failure. Why had my dates gone so horribly wrong? How did we match in the first place? Why had the cupid in my computer betrayed me? Was it my picture? My profile? Was I too forward? Too passive? Did that dick pic not send?

I obsessively checked my phone, hoping to score and mulling over what I’d done wrong, but the hits weren’t coming like they used to. I swiped left for hours without a single match, and then it occurred to me: I’d been downgraded. Somewhere along the line I’d lost my mojo, and the app knew it. I was now a bottom-of-the-barrel bachelor.

If the computer couldn’t help me, I’d have to help myself. But was I really better suited to finding a mate than my smartphone?

Around the same time, one of my closest friends received an email saying he was “now among the most attractive people on OKCupid” and would subsequently “see more attractive people” in his results.

Here I was, getting hit with the ugly stick on Tinder while in another corner of the online dating universe one of my best friends had just joined an exclusive club of the internet’s most eligible bachelors. Something had gone horribly wrong. So I did what sore losers do and I quit. I deleted Grindr and Tinder and Scruff and swore off online dating altogether. If the computer couldn’t help me, I’d have to help myself. But was I really better suited to finding a mate than my smartphone?

Despite claims that location-based hookup apps like Grindr and Tinder have either disrupted or destroyed dating, computer-assisted matchmaking is nothing new. In his book A Million First Dates, Dan Slater traces the origins of online dating to the university labs of Stanford, Harvard and Iowa State University in the late ’50s to mid-’60s, where engineers used punch-cards to feed questionnaires into massive IBM computers in the hopes of finding like-minded suitors for willing singles. The projects had limited reach but planted the seed for the boom in online dating that started with sites like Match.com, eHarmony and OKCupid in the ’90s and early aughts.

These sites traded on their scientific approach to matchmaking. EHarmony claimed to have used science to “lower the divorce rate,” while OKCupid famously saved itself from extinction by publishing its findings on dating and big data. As the stigma surrounding computer-assisted coupling faded and smartphones went from luxury to first-world necessity, sites like Tinder and Grindr flourished. According to a recent Pew Research study, 15 percent of US adults have logged on to get off, implicitly trusting that math to find a mate.

Some companies are more open than others about their secret matchmaking sauce. While the king of all hookup apps is notoriously tight-lipped about its mathematical matchmaking techniques, a recent article in Fast Company revealed that Tinder sorts users with an internal desirability ranking. During an interview with the company’s CEO Sean Rad, Austin Carr was shown his “Elo score,” a nickname apparently cribbed from the chess world. It was the first public admission that such a ranking exists.

It’s clear that we want the algorithm to work and apps like Scruff and Tinder trade on that desire, but evidence to support their efficacy is largely anecdotal.

Unfortunately, that admission is about as much as we know today. There are countless ways in which Tinder could parse our data. It could cull information from our Facebook profiles, Instagram feeds and, of course, our behavior on the app. In November of last year, the company touted big changes to its matching algorithm that would lead “to a significant increase in matches,” but when pressed for details in an interview with TechCrunch, Rad referenced Google’s secrecy over its search algorithm.

Other dating services aren’t nearly as quiet about what makes their matches tick. OKCupid, which built its reputation as a leader in online dating off its exhaustive data analysis, has been transparent about its ranking of users based on their supposed attractiveness. This hot-or-not method of pairing perspective dates seems the perfect match for a service as superficial as Tinder, where prospective lovers are presented like trading cards, but it’s certainly not the only way computers are helping us get laid today.

Scruff, a gay hookup app, uses a series of methods and algorithms to suit different user behaviors. The app ranks its users based on how many times other users have “woofed” (the equivalent of a like or fav) a given profile and presents those in a “most-woofed grid.” It also presents an alternative grid of users based solely on proximity.

But it’s the app’s Match Stack function, similar to Tinder’s swiping interface, where algorithms are hardest at work. (Full disclosure: I’ve been on Scruff off and on for the better part of a year, but have yet to make a connection that materialized in a real-world encounter. This could be due in part to the community’s overwhelmingly hirsute focus and my lack of body hair.)

Scruff co-founder Eric Silverberg described the Match Stack as a combination of geo-location and a Netflix-style collaborative filtering.

“The simple way to explain it is, if I like Daniel and Daniel likes Chris, it’s going to show me Chris, because, presumably, if we have similar taste in one thing, then our tastes will overlap, potentially in others. ” Silverberg said.

It doesn’t take a team of psychologists to prove that computer-assisted matchmaking, despite decades of work, isn’t a perfect science.

That seemingly simple process is made possible with what Silverberg describes as a “CPU-intensive machine in the Amazon cloud” crunching hundreds of gigabytes of data, including billions of user ratings in order to provide a “stack” of men tailored-made to fit each user’s explicit and implicit tastes. But, he points out that “those machine recommendations” aren’t everything. The app also peppers in a random assortment of guys in your area to build a more “diverse stack.”

It’s clear that we want the algorithm to work and apps like Scruff and Tinder trade on that desire, but evidence to support the efficacy is largely anecdotal. Yes, there are countless computer-assisted dating success stories, but how much of that success is based on access and volume and how much of it can actually be attributed to fine-tuned mathematical equations?

According to an oft-cited paper published in Psychological Science and the Public Interest, a research team led by Northwestern University professor of social psychology Eli Finkel found that there’s no evidence to prove that algorithms are better than humans at predicting compatibility. The paper’s summary puts it this way:

“Part of the problem is that matching sites build their mathematical algorithms around principles —typically similarity but also complementarity — that are much less important to relationship well-being than has long been assumed. In addition, these sites are in a poor position to know how the two partners will grow and mature over time, what life circumstances they will confront and coping responses they will exhibit in the future and how the dynamics of their interaction will ultimately promote or undermine romantic attraction and long-term relationship well-being.”

And then there’s the ever-important question of chemistry. As a good friend posed it: “How does a computer know who your body wants to fuck?” It’s a very real question. Compatibility goes beyond preferences, appearances and relative attraction. When we meet someone in person, there’s a whole host of biological signals at play that a computer just can’t re-create. It doesn’t take a team of psychologists to prove that computer-assisted matchmaking, despite decades of work, isn’t a perfect science.

That said, in my month living off the online dating grid, I didn’t get laid once. I went on zero dates and aside from a couple of drunken winks across the bar, my flirtations were fleeting. I eventually re-downloaded Tinder, Grindr and Scruff and within days I was back in action. Twenty-four hours hours in, I was chatting with a handful of men, and making plans for offline encounters.

A few weeks back online and at least one one-night stand later, I got a message from a man I likely never would have met in the real world. He lives three cities over and works nights in law enforcement. With my travel and work schedules being what they are, the chances of us physically being in the same place at the same time are slim.

We’ve been on four dates and my faith in the love algorithm has been partially, if not cautiously, restored. There were, no doubt, multiple equations at work in connecting us in the first place, but something much bigger got us into bed. The truth is, math can only take you so far. The rest is chemistry.

Netflix bags rights to new ‘Top Gear’

Netflix was recently said to be discussing rights to the new series of Top Gear with the BBC, and as it turns out, a deal has indeed been struck. Top brass at the streaming service confirmed as much to BuzzFeed News, though the finer details are pretty fuzzy right now. The fact the two hashed out an agreement isn’t a huge surprise. Older seasons of the motoring show (when Clarkson was at the helm) have been available on the streaming service for some time, so it wasn’t like a presenter shuffle was going to destroy the working relationship Netflix and the BBC had built.

Netflix execs weren’t ready to talk regions, saying instead that the terms are essentially the same as existing agreements between the two. In other words, Netflix will acquire certain rights in territories where the BBC doesn’t already have syndication deals. It’s anyone’s guess what that means for the US at this point, since the BBC is planning to launch its own subscription streaming service there sometime this year.

A couple of weeks ago, the BBC released the first teaser for the new series of Top Gear, and it promises to be just as high-octane (and as high-budget) as the show was pre-hiatus. Meanwhile, Clarkson & Co are busy filming their new motoring show for Amazon, which will debut on Prime Video this fall.

Source: BuzzFeed

Nintendo’s ‘Miitomo’ reportedly has over 4 million users

Nintendo’s first smartphone app, Miitomo, launched with a lot of fanfare. But how many people are actually interested in it? Quite a few, if you ask SurveyMonkey. It estimates that Miitomo has racked up 4 million people who use it at least once a month, and 1 million who use it every day. Supposedly, that translates to about $280,000 in in-app purchases every week. That’s not a huge amount of cash in the context of Nintendo’s console games, but pretty healthy for a brand new (and relatively niche) social network.

These aren’t official figures, and Nintendo hasn’t confirmed anything beyond the 1 million total users it mentioned before the US launch. Take this data with a grain of salt, then. If the estimate is reasonably precise, though, it shows that Nintendo’s brand and early experience are enough to reel people in. The real question is whether or not they’ll stay. Miitomo has reasons to come back (such as answering questions or upgrading your outfit), but it’s not as involving as sharing life events on Facebook or Twitter.

Source: SurveyMonkey

Samsung’s 2016 4K TVs start at $1,499, get even smarter

This year is shaping up to be a 4K HDR showdown for all of the big TV makers. We’ve already seen Vizio and LG’s entries, and now Samsung has announced more details about its latest lineup. All of its new 4K TVs feature quantum dot technology, which promise more accurate colors compared to LED on its own. They also sport a revamped “Smart Hub” interface, which streamlines the entire process of setting up your TV and integrating new devices. And, as we’ve heard before, they’ll also serve as hubs for Samsung’s SmartThings IoT platform, allowing you to control a variety of smart home devices using the TV.

Your cheapest path to a Samsung 4K set this year is the KS8000, which starts at $1,499 for the 49-inch model. If, for some reason, you actually like curved TVs, the KS8500 might be a better option, starting at $1,699 for the 49-inch model. Of course, there are a wide variety of size options — all the way up to 65-inches for both models (just expect the cost to escalate quickly).

For a step up in picture quality, there’s Samsung’s new 9-series, starting with the flat 55-inch KS9000 for $2,299, or the curved 55-inch KS9500 for $2,499. As always, you pay more for the curved effect. And if you want to go for broke and get Samsung’s latest, greatest SUHD set, start saving up: The KS9800 will run you $4,499 for the 65-inch model when it lands in early June. For all that cash you’ll get a nearly bezel-less 4K set that can spit out one billion colors with HDR.

While all of Samsung’s new sets offer the same underlying technology — 4K resolutions, quantum dots, and full HDR support — you’ll get a better overall picture as you step up through the model ranges. Expect better backlighting and truer blacks as you go up in price. No matter which set you get, you’ll be able to take advantage of the more refined Smart Hub interface. It shows up as an overlay on the bottom of the screen, where you can step through apps, inputs and TV settings. Apps for services like Netflix and Hulu can even recommend things to watch, or show your most recently viewed titles, right from the Smart Hub bar.

This time around, “smart” doesn’t just mean these TVs can get online and use apps. They can also automatically recognize when new devices are plugged in and program their remotes to control them. After plugging in an Xbox One into a demo set for the first time, a Samsung rep was able to navigate the Xbox interface with the TV’s remote with no additional setup. At launch, Smart Hub will also integrate directly into cable boxes from Comcast, Time Warner, Dish and DirecTV.

Samsung’s Dolby Atmos soundbar system will cost $1,499

We were intrigued by Samsung’s HW-K950 soundbar system back at CES, mainly because it promised to be a simple way to bring Dolby Atmos into your living room. Now we’ve got pricing details and, well, it sort of hurts. The new system will run you $1,499 when it lands this summer — that includes the soundbar itself, two wireless satellites, and a wireless sub. The soundbar and satellites all include upward-firing speakers, which bounce sound off your ceiling to simulate overhead Atmos effects.

If that sounds too rich for your blood, there’s also the HW-K50 system for $899, which consists of a single Atmos-enabled soundbar and a wireless sub. That won’t get you the full immersion you’d get with rear surround speakers, but it’d certainly be a step up from using TV speakers on their own. You can also upgrade later to full surround sound with two of Samsung’s Radiant360 wireless speakers.

While pricey, the HW-K950 did a decent job of delivering enveloping surround sound across several demos. The bass felt a bit too boomy for my tastes, but that could have just been an overzealous rep cranking the subwoofer up way too high. The soundbar system might also be ideal for people who want a home theater upgrade without running wires all over their living room.

Uber’s first transparency report details regulatory data requests

Uber faces constant criticism for its policies relating to drivers and security. Today, the ride-hailing company released its first transparency report, detailing the scope of information requests from law enforcement and regulators in the US. In fact, Uber says it’s the first company to include regulatory requests in this type of report, a disclosure that Google, Facebook and others have made a habit of over the last few years. When it comes to the scale of the regulatory requests, Uber says it received 33 in the last six months of 2015. Those requests included information on nearly 14 million drivers and riders between July and December 2015.

The company says that while personal information remains locked down, the “blanket” requests from regulators do ask for trip information. This sometimes includes the exact GPS coordinates of pickup/drop off locations or the exact path of the trip. Again, this is information being sought by regulators, not law enforcement.

When it comes to law enforcement requests, Uber complies with “the majority” of those, after going through the proper legal channels. It requires either a subpoena or warrant before handing over any information. In 2015, the company received 415 requests from mostly state law enforcement which included info on 613 driver and rider accounts, mostly pertaining to criminal cases. Uber also noted that it has not yet received National Security Letters or FISA orders. Today’s transparency report only details disclosures made to US agencies, so it will be interesting to see if Uber does the same in other countries where it operates.

Via: Reuters

Source: Uber

Teen Interest in iPhone Remains High, Apple Watch is Most Popular Smart Watch

Teen interest in Apple’s iPhone continues to grow, according to data gathered by Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster in the latest semiannual teen survey. 69 percent of teens surveyed own iPhones, up from 67 percent in the Fall 2015 survey. 75 percent of teens queried expect their next device to be an iPhone, up 1 percent from the previous survey.

Smart watches are not as popular among teens as smartphones, and only 12 percent of those surveyed owned a smart watch. With teen smart watch owners, the Apple Watch was the model most often chosen — of the 12 percent of teens who own a smart watch, 71 percent are Apple Watches. Just 10 percent of teens say they’re interested in purchasing a smart watch, a number that’s grown just two percent since fall of 2015.

We would expect the Apple Watch to maintain market share close to that of iPhone, but don’t expect major changes in interest until stronger use cases emerge. We continue to view CY17 as the potential breakout year for Apple Watch.

When considering the full range of wearables, the Fitbit was the most preferred brand among teens, with 72 percent surveyed choosing the Fitbit. Nike came in second at 12 percent, and interest in the Apple Watch was at six percent. Wearables are growing in popularity, with 22 percent of females and 18 percent of males surveyed owning a fitness tracker, up from 14 and 12 percent, respectively, in the previous survey.

Tablet interest and ownership among teens in Munster’s annual survey has been steadily declining. 59 percent of teens own a tablet, down from 61 percent, and just 13 percent of teens who do not own a tablet plan to buy one in the next six months. Still, the iPad remains the most popular tablet among teens. Of those who own a tablet, 64 percent have an iPad.

Interest in the iPad has grown among teens who plan to buy a tablet, however, which may be attributed to the launch of Apple’s 9.7-inch and 12.9-inch iPad Pros. When surveyed, 63 percent of the 13 percent of non-tablet owners planning to buy one said they would choose an iPad, up from 58 percent in the fall.

iPhone adoption among teens may see growth in the fall, with the release of the iPhone 7, a major upgrade that’s expected to bring significant new features like a dual camera on the Plus model and minor design refinements. Apple Watch growth may remain stagnant, as recent rumors have suggested the second-generation update will be relatively minor in scale. Interest in the iPad may see a continuing decline as Apple does not have any significant product changes in the works, having just released the iPad Pro models in late 2015 and early 2016.

Tags: Piper Jaffray, Gene Munster, teen survey
Discuss this article in our forums