Thursday, March 10, 2011

What ‘The Social Network’ Won (Three Awards, But Not Best Picture) #Oscars


Despite losing Best Picture to The King’s Speech, Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher’s epic Facebook creation myth The Social Network did pick up three Oscars tonight, more than any film about nerds has ever garnered, unless you count A Beautiful Mind. The Social Network won Best Film Editing (Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter), Best Original Score (Trent Reznor) and Best Adapted Screenplay (Aaron Sorkin) at tonight’s 83rd Academy Awards Ceremony.
The film, which picked up four awards including Best Picture at the Golden Globes and was nominated for eight Oscars, was definitely the Twitter and tech crowd favorite but apparently not the Academy’s.
We did indeed have something to to root for despite David Fincher losing to The King’s Speech’s Tom Hooper for Best Director, Jesse Eisenberg (who played Mark Zuckerberg) also losing to the very-deserving Colin Firth in the Best Actor category, and the film itself losing to The King’s Speech in the most important category of the night, Best Picture. The King’s Speech, with twelve nominees and four wins, was perhaps the “biggest dog in this fight,” to borrow a term from the film.
Traditionally the Best Editing award is usually an indicator of what film will win Best Picture (only nine films have taken the coveted Best Picture award without winning Best Editing) but that rule didn’t hold in this case. Both Inception and The King’s Speech beat The Social Network at sheer amount of awards won, at four to The Social Network’s three.
Here’s the full list of what The Social Network won, what it was nominated for and who it was up against, via Slashfilm (Bold = Winner).
BEST PICTURE:
Black Swan
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King’s Speech
127 Hours
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter’s Bone
DIRECTING:
Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan
David O. Russell, The Fighter
Tom Hooper, The King’s Speech
David Fincher, The Social Network
Joel and Ethan Coen, True Grit
ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE:
Javier Bardem, Biutiful
Jeff Bridges, True Grit
Jesse Eisenberg, The Social Network
Colin Firth, The King’s Speech
James Franco, 127 Hours
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
127 Hours (Fox Searchlight), Screenplay by Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy
The Social Network (Sony Pictures Releasing), Screenplay by Aaron Sorkin
Toy Story 3 (Walt Disney), Screenplay by Michael Arndt. Story by John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich
 (Paramount), Written for the screen by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
Winter’s Bone (Roadside Attractions), Adapted for the screen by Debra Granik & Anne Rosellini
CINEMATOGRAPHY:
Black Swan (Fox Searchlight) Matthew Libatique
Inception (Warner Bros.) Wally Pfister
The King’s Speech (The Weinstein Company) Danny Cohen
The Social Network (Sony Pictures Releasing) Jeff Cronenweth
True Grit (Paramount) Roger Deakins
FILM EDITING:
Black Swan (Fox Searchlight) Andrew Weisblum
The Fighter Paramount Pamela Martin
The King’s Speech (The Weinstein Company) Tariq Anwar
127 Hours (Fox Searchlight) Jon Harris
The Social Network (Sony Pictures Releasing) Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter
ORIGINAL SCORE:
How to Train Your Dragon (Paramount) John Powell
Inception (Warner Bros.) Hans Zimmer
The King’s Speech (The Weinstein Company) Alexandre Desplat
127 Hours (Fox Searchlight) A.R. Rahman
The Social Network (Sony Pictures Releasing) Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross
SOUND MIXING
Inception, Lora Hirschberg, Gary A. Rizzo and Ed Novick

The King’s Speech, Paul Hamblin, Martin Jensen and John Midgley
Salt, Jeffrey J. Haboush, Greg P. Russell, Scott Millan and William Sarokin
The Social Network, Ren Klyce, David Parker, Michael Semanick and Mark Weingarten
True Grit, Skip Lievsay, Craig Berkey, Greg Orloff and Peter F. Kurland
Tom Keiser@keisertroll
Tom Keiser
I WANT TO THANK YOU LIKE AN ANIMAL #reznor #oscars
Danny Trinh@dtrinh
Danny Trinh
Sandra: "Jesse, you've inspired lonely young men around ye world hunched over keyboards." We got a shoutout!
Alexia Tsotsis@alexia
Alexia Tsotsis
Tech bloggers of the world rejoice! You don't have to write another post tonight. #Oscars
MG Siegler@parislemon
MG Siegler
The Social Network isn't cool. You know what's cool? The King's Speech.
brandchannel@brandchannelhub
brandchannel
The Social Network wins Best Editing nod, while Facebook won't let you edit what you post. #hmm #Oscars
Facebook image
Website:facebook.com
Location:Palo Alto, California, United States
Founded:February 1, 2004
Funding:$2.34B
Facebook is the world’s largest social network, with over 500 million users.
Facebook was founded by… Learn More

Facebook Rolls Out Overhauled Comments System (Try Them Now On TechCrunch)


Technology

Over the last few months there have been numerous reports about a new, fully revamped Facebook commenting plugin that would make the social network a viable competitor to the likes of Disqus, Echo, and the stock comment engines found in WordPress and other CMS platforms. Well, the reports were true, and today Facebook is lifting the curtain on its big new comments platform. If you want to get a taste of them, look down — we’re currently testing them on TechCrunch.
Now let’s take a look at what makes this interesting. First, you’ll notice that if you’re already logged into Facebook, you won’t have to click though any authentication options. More important, you’ll notice that any comments you write are being left under your real name, which spells bad news for you trolls and spammers. And then there are the viral Facebook-centric features that other comment engines simply can’t compete with.
Whenever you leave a comment on a site that’s using Facebook comments, you’ll see a checkbox asking if you’d like to also post that comment to Facebook. Leave it checked (it is by default), and your comment will be posted on your Facebook Wall and in your friends’ News Feeds. That’s nice, but plenty of other sites let you syndicate content to your Facebook profile. But Facebook is also giving its own comments engine a feature that nobody else can reproduce: comments can be syndicated the other way.
Let’s say I leave a comment on TechCrunch and opt to have that comment shared to Facebook, too. Then, if one of my Facebook friends comes along and leaves a comment on Facebook about my comment, their comment will be posted back to TechCrunch. In other words, any discussion that my comment sparks between my Facebook friends will be seen on TechCrunch as well. That’s very powerful, and it’s something that nobody else can do.

This is the first time Facebook has enabled this kind of automatic external posting (historically everything you’ve posted on Facebook has stayed on Facebook). The company says that it’s making it clear what’s going on — you’ll notice in the photo above that the button users click actually says which site they’ll be posting to. But, given that this is a new experience on the site, I’m sure we’ll encounter some people who inadvertently have their comments posted to third-party sites.
Aside from the sharing features, Facebook is using its social algorithms to surface the comments that will be most interesting to you — comments left by your Facebook friends will float to the top. Comments will also be sorted according to how much discussion they’ve sparked (this sounds a lot like the sorting feature in Facebook’s new Pages update). Incidentally, it’s also now possible to leave a comment on an external site as a Facebook Page, which means we could see brands use Facebook to leave ‘official’ comments on blog posts.
The new comments system also includes many of the administrative options you’d expect. Admins can moderate comments, and readers can mark posts as spam, and so on. And integrating this with a site should be straightforward: Facebook says it just takes adding a single line of code.
One Big Flaw
It’s promising, particularly because of the syndication features, but the system is far from perfect. The big reason: there are a lot of people who won’t want to use Facebook to leave comments.
Facebook is working with third parties to include other authentication mechanisms, and at launch it’s including support for Yahoo IDs. But it’s missing some other major options — namely, Twitter and Google.
In fact, Facebook had hoped to launch with support from both providers, but something went wrong and support for both Google and Twitter was pulled. It seems likely that given their tense relationship with Facebook, both services have blocked API access to the commenting widget at the eleventh hour.
Facebook image
Website:facebook.com
Location:Palo Alto, California, United States
Founded:February 1, 2004
Funding:$2.34B
Facebook is the world’s largest social network, with over 500 million users.
Facebook was founded by… Learn More

The Pros And Cons Of Facebook Comments

Today, Facebook rolled out anew commenting system for blogs and third-party sites. We’ve implemented it here on TechCrunch, and after a few hours of the system being live it is obvious that it has its share of pros and cons. Readers have certainly noticed, and there is already a ton debate about whether this is good or bad for the Internet.
It is certainly not perfect. Facebook comments don’t support Twitter or Google logins. It doesn’t yet allow sites to archive their comments to make backups (although an API for that is forthcoming I am told), and switching away from Facebook comments after a few months on the system looks like it will be a hassle (data portability anyone?). Some corporations block Facebook, which kills it as a commenting system for that subset of users. In one fell swoop it could hurt Disqus, which is a great startup that’s been perfecting its commenting system for years. And there are lots of little bugs we’ve noticed that hopefully will be fixed soon (we were manually moderating every comment on TechCrunch until a few minutes ago, and you still can’t see a comment count at the top of each post like you could before).
On the other hand, it also has some real advantages. Primary among these is that it requires commenters to use their real identities. In the past few hours, most of the anonymous trolls who have come to call TechCrunch comments a second home are gone. Of course, some people don’t want to comment with their real names for good reason (they want to speak freely without fear of reprisals), but for the most part in practice anonymity was abused. It was used mostly as a shield to hide behind and throw out invective. Have the trolls really vanished or will they return? I certainly hope they are gone. We have fewer comments in general on most posts today, but the conversations are much more civil and interesting.
The other main benefit is social virality. When you comment on TechCrunch, your comment also appears in your Facebook stream with a link back to the post (unless you opt out of that option in the comment box). It would be better if the link went right to your comment instead of to the post in general, but that is a feature that can be added. It brings in more readers from Facebook who are pulled in to see what their friends said.
So what are the results? So far today, Facebook is our No. 2 referring site, after AOL (thank you, Justin Bieber). It is beating out Twitter, which is usually our top source of referring traffic. This viral effect would be twice as powerful, of course, if people could use their Twitter IDs as well.
Pros
  • Real names and identities greatly reduces the number of trolls and anonymous cowards in comments.
  • Social virality boosts traffic by creating a feedback loop between Facebook and participating sites.  Friends pull in their friends, creating a social entry point to your site.
  • Automatic sign-in if you already signed into Facebook elsewhere, lowers the barriers to commenting.
  • Most “liked” comments get voted to the top.  It also knows who your friends are, so you will see those comments first.
Cons
  • No support for Twitter or Google IDs, which leaves out the other half of the social Web.
  • No backups and other lock-ins will make it hard for sites to leave.
  • If you work somewhere that blocks Facebook, you are out of luck.
  • Your friends might be surprised to find their replies in your Facebook News stream reproduced on another site’s comments.  Expect a backlash.
  • Moderation bugs, no view counts at the top of posts or ways to highlight site owners/writers in comments.

Apple Ponders Their Subscription Ruling, Readability Goes Full HTML5

A few weeks ago, Readability got word that their iPhone app was rejected by Apple. While obviously, that’s never good news, this was especially hard to take because the reason for the rejection was that they were offering a subscription service without offering Apple’s new in-app subscription layer. They were dumbfounded and pissed off by this rejection because they didn’t see it coming and it didn’t seem to make sense. But rather than dwell on it, they went right back to the drawing board.
The result of that and two weeks of fast-paced work is a full-on HTML5 version of their app, which Readability is releasing today. The web app is specifically designed for both mobile and tablets, using some of the more advanced aspects of HTML5, including offline storage support.
And as you can see in the image above, thanks to HTML5, it will work on a lot more than just Apple devices. Because Apple rejected them, Android is getting some love too. “It’s an update and a statement of sorts,” co-founder Richard Ziade says.
But Readability also hasn’t fully given up on Apple just yet. As we noted a couple weeks ago, they re-submitted their app to try again after hearing talk from no less than Steve Jobs saying the in-app subscription rules were just meant for publishers, and not SaaS apps (which Readability considers itself to be).
They have yet to hear back from Apple on the issue. But perhaps it’s a good sign that they weren’t rejected right away once again.
For now though, it’s HTML5-only for Readability — which, by the way, is exactly what Apple has been suggesting rejected app makers create to work on the iPhone.

TechCrunch Review — The iPad 2: Yeah, You’re Gonna Want One

In January 2010, shortly after its unveiling, I first got my hands on an iPad. My initial reaction? “The iPad is like holding the future.” And that’s funny because here we are, just a little over a year into that future, and something new has come along that makes holding the iPad 1 feel like holding the past: the iPad 2.



A week ago, after its unveiling, I got some hands on time with the new hardware and my initial assessment was that it pushed a device that already had no true competition, even farther ahead. But now I’ve had the chance to actually use the thing non-stop for a week. Is my feeling the same?

Actually, it’s even stronger.

The original iPad was considered a huge hit — but that was with no real competition. The iPad 2 has some competition — right now, the Xoom, and many more are coming. But I have no doubt that the iPad 2 will be an even bigger hit than the original.



Hardware

Here’s the peculiar thing about the iPad 2: if you’re just looking at it head on, it doesn’t really look any different than the iPad 1. Sure, there’s a tiny camera just above the screen, but you can barely see that. Unless you get the white version, it will be just like looking at the iPad 1. And that will undoubtedly lead some people to conclude that the iPad 2 isn’t that big of a deal. But as is the case with most Apple products, you really have to use it to safely make that assessment.

The single biggest change form a physical perspective is the thickness. Holding the original iPad now feels a bit like holding a slightly bulky monitor compared to the iPad 2. The iPad 2 feels much more like holding a clipboard — albeit a mildly heavy one. The move to cut the thickness from 13.4mm down to 8.8mm really makes a huge difference when you switch from holding one to holding the other.

And while the iPad 2 isn’t actually all that much lighter than the iPad 1 (about 700g versus 600g — depending on if you get the 3G or WiFi version, obviously), the change in thickness almost tricks you into thinking it is significantly lighter.

Overall, the device has a much more fluid design. Apple notes that the body now consists of two parts instead of the three that made up the iPad 1. This makes it feel even more solid, and even more like a natural object instead of a machine.

The tapered edges of the iPad 2 feel better in your hands. And those edges also make the buttons on the side and top more pronounced (and a bit easier to use). Of course, the tapered bottom also makes the dock connector a bit harder to use, but that’s a minor nit.



Perhaps my favorite small upgrade is the main button. Previously, it was a somewhat heavy and loud click. Now it’s a light and quiet click.

As you’ve undoubtedly heard by now, the cameras on the device are not great. But it’s hard to imagine anyone using this as a point-and-shoot camera replacement — or even a smartphone camera replacement. Instead, the cameras are clearly meant for FaceTime and to shoot 720p HD movies (with the back camera) that can then be edited on the fly using the new iMovie app (more on that below).

The battery life remains excellent. Apple made a point of saying that despite the new thinness, they didn’t sacrifice battery life. From my use this past week, that does seem to be the case.

But the biggest changes to the hardware that people will care about are undoubtedly the upgraded processor and RAM. Apple has stated that the iPad 2 uses their new A5 chip, which is a dual-core chip, meaning it’s much more powerful than its predecessor, the A4. They have not said anything in terms of the RAM included in the iPad 2, but it seems fairly obvious at this point that it has double the RAM (512 MB) of the original iPad, putting it on equal footing with the iPhone 4.

Do these upgrades make a huge difference? It depends. For more memory intensive apps, obviously the answer is going to be yes. The Daily is a good example of this. It launches and works much more smoothly on the iPad 2 than on the iPad 1. And that’s without any optimization being done on their side. Certain games like Infinity Blade also load faster and generally seem to run a bit more smoothly. App switching as a whole is clearly faster. And you can have many more Safari browser windows open at once before Apple starts reloading them.

But the truth is that most of the apps weren’t slow to begin with on the iPad. The real key here will be what developers are able to do now that they know they have this second core and more RAM available to them. I suspect we’re going to see a lot of game-changing apps spring up on the iPad 2 that weren’t possible before. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s exactly why Apple made GarageBand and iMovie — to show developers what they can now do. iMovie iPad 2-only (though it is available for the iPhone 4 as well). And they are awesome (again, more below).



Software

Speaking of software, earlier today, Apple unveiled iOS 4.3. It’s the OS that will come pre-installed on the iPad 2. There’s nothing hugely different from an aesthetic perspective from iOS 4.2, but a little digging does reveal some welcome additions.

The biggest of these is probably the new Nitro JavaScript engine that comes baked into Safari. Apple is touting huge improvements in terms of speed, and using JavaScript-heavy web apps like Facebook definitely shows a difference.

The other big additions are AirPlay upgrades and Home Sharing. AirPlay in iOS 4.3 now includes the ability for third-party apps to take advantage of it. Those apps aren’t out just yet, but hopefully they will be soon — so we can all kill cable. Home Sharing allows you to play your media from another machine on your WiFi network (just like from Mac to Mac). It works well — but I think we all just wished it worked over the web as well. Soon… soon.

For the iPad 2 specifically, two great pieces of software now bundled into iOS 4.3: FaceTime and Photo Booth. Both are iPad 2 only because both obviously require a camera. But Apple says that the real-time rendering for the 9-photo view in Photo Booth also requires the graphical power of the A5 chip.



FaceTime on the iPad 2 is particularly nice because the nearly 10-inch screen seems much better suited for the feature than the 3.5-inch screen found on the iPhone. I’m still not a huge fan of the mechanism for initially finding people to FaceTime with (especially because the iPad has no phone app), but once you establish that first connection, FaceTime is a breeze to use. And it remains WiFi-only, so the quality is solid.

OS X users will recognize Photo Booth immediately. It’s little more than a fun app, but again, it shows the type of graphical rendering capabilities the A5 is capable of.

The real software goods come from the aforementioned iMovie and also GarageBand. Both are sold separately for $4.99 in the App Store, and both are well worth the price.

The remarkable thing about both of them is that I like each more than I like their counterparts on OS X. These have been redesigned from the ground up to be useful on the big multi-touch screen that the iPad offers. And it’s amazing how usable they are. If Apple wants to sell a lot of iPad 2s, all they have to do is put them on display in Apple Stores with these two apps installed. When you’re using them, you’ll experience the kind of “wow, I can do this on this device?” type of feeling.

Again, I suspect Apple had multiple motivations for making these two apps. One one hands, they’re great apps that people will get a ton of use out of. One the other, they showcase that yes, the iPad is creating as well as consuming. And with the new chip and its graphical capabilities in the iPad 2, it can do a lot more. These will inspire third-party developers to aim higher.



The Smart Cover

Alongside the iPad 2, I also got to try out one of the new iPad 2 “smart” covers this past week. Simply put: I love this thing.

The first Apple iPad cover, in my opinion, was awful. This one is completely different, and has been designed to not only work with the iPad 2, but be symbiotic with it.

The cover attaches via magnets. This makes sure it is never mis-aligned. And just as important: this allows it to easily detach as well. And the cover can fold up to double as a stand for either typing (slightly elevating the iPad 2) or watching content (elevating the iPad 2 higher).

The coolest thing about it though is that it can put to sleep and wake up the iPad 2. Yes, with the cover you’ll no longer have to hit the sleep/wake button if you don’t want to. That speaks well for the button-less iPad of the future.

I would not be surprised if Apple actually puts these covers on display alongside the iPad 2s in the Apple Stores. I have little doubt that nearly everyone who buys an iPad 2 will also walk away with one of these covers as well if they get a chance to play with one. And that’s yet another genius move by Apple because they’re not exactly cheap at $39 (poly) and $69 (leather). This is Apple ensuring that they’re going to make that much more money on each iPad 2 sold. Brilliant.



Disappointments

The disappointments for the iPad 2 are largely the same as they were for the iPad 1. I still wish the thing was a little lighter. Holding it in one hand is fine in some positions, in others it gets tiring.

I also wish the screen was less reflective. You basically cannot read anything in direct sunlight.

Speaking of the screen, there had been a lot of talk about the iPad 2 getting a higher resolution “retina” display. Obviously, that didn’t happen. That would have been nice, but the iPad screen as it stands is already pretty great.

The rest of my complaints are largely software-based. I wish there was a way to sync media and apps over the air. I wish the notification system was better, etc. Hopefully Apple will have more to show along those lines in iOS 5 shortly.



So, Should You Buy It?

At this point, you’re probably thinking that the hardware, software, and smart cover all sound great. But you’re still wondering if you should buy one or not? If you don’t have an iPad and want one, it’s the easiest call in the world. Of course you should. This is everything that was great about the initial iPad, but better.

If you’re worried about another iPad coming out later this year, remember that it’s at least six to nine months away for something which may or may not even come — a lot can happen between now and then. And if it does come, maybe it will be aimed at a slightly different audience. Who knows. But if you’ve decided that you definitely want an iPad, you’ll probably just be dwelling on it over the next several months if you don’t take the plunge now.

For existing iPad owners, things are a bit murkier. If you have the disposable income, it’s a no-brainer to upgrade. Again, this is everything you like about the iPad 1, but better.

But if you just bought an iPad 1, or you don’t want to drop another several hundred dollars, it’s not like the iPad 1 will be out of date anytime soon. Sure, it may feel like older technology to the touch, but again, it largely looks and acts the same. My advice is just don’t visit an Apple Store or play with a friend’s iPad 2, or you’ll be tempted.

If you do decide you want one, deciding between the 3G versions versus the WiFi version is also a bit of a tricky call. If you have an iPhone 4 with the Personal Hotspot (or any smartphone with a hotspot feature), it’s probably best just to get the WiFi version, you’ll save some money. If you plan on taking the iPad out with you a lot or on trips in the U.S., maybe the 3G will be worth it.



Then it’s a question of AT&T 3G versus Verizon 3G (yes, there are two separate models). I played around with the AT&T model, and it worked well despite AT&T’s notoriously bad network in the San Francisco area. In terms of coverage, the same rule applies: the Verizon network is likely more reliable, but the AT&T network is faster. In fact, the AT&T 3G version of the iPad 2 has technology built in that the Verizon version does not that will make data speeds faster at optimal connections.

In terms of the other competition out there that doesn’t begin with a lowercase “i”, it’s becoming clearer by the day that most don’t yet stack up well against the iPad 1, let alone iPad 2. I’ve only played with a Xoom for a few minutes, and I was generally impressed, but apparently it’s very, very buggy. Just listen to Jason talk about it here.

The tablets from RIM and HP aren’t out yet, and the pricing details around them don’t sound too promising. (The iPad 2, by the way, starts at the same $499 price point of the original iPad.) Further, the app support for all of the rivals isn’t too promising right now either. That’s one of the iPad 2′s greatest advantages that doesn’t show up on a spec sheet.

There are now over 70,000 apps built specifically for the iPad. Obviously, not all of them are great or even good. But if just 10 percent are, that destroys the competition. And given that developers already have experience developing for this platform, they should be able to adjust quickly to make even better apps that take advantage of the iPad 2 hardware improvements. It just doesn’t look too good for rivals at this point.

And just for fun this time around, Apple threw in one more choice: white or black? Good luck with that one.

Let me sum all of this up in a simple way: the iPad 2, should you buy one? Maybe, it depends on a few factors. Will you want to buy one? Yes. Use that information wisely.