Google Goes Knight Rider All Over California

In true Knight Rider fashion, Google has been developing self-driving cars. And this isn't a rumor or plan for the future, they've been testing these cars on actual California roads for months now.
As a tech-geek, you can bet I've read the slew of articles about Google's new endeavor and am very curious/excited/salivating-over the what this technology may bring. But I won't get ahead of myself, because there are a few issues to address before we see swarms of robot-cars on our highways.

The first, but potentially most divisive, question is also the simplest: Does the public want self-driving cars?

Here's a few different takes on this question, starting with why people do want cars that drive themselves:

• Safety concerns: Over a million lives are lost each year to road traffic accidents (according to the World Health Organization). It's hard to think that self-driving cars wouldn't help bring that number down significantly.
• Stop the texting menace: In the same vein as that first point, there's a big push these days to stop people from texting while driving. Cars that drive themselves would eliminate the threat that texting causes.
• Far more productive traffic jams: Not having to drive would allow people to actually get work done during those long morning commutes, which could have a big impact on overall productivity.
• We're a techno-centric society: In our modern world, innovation breeds aspiration. If it's new, a lot of people will want it solely for that fact.

On the other hand, here are the obstacles Google will likely face:

• Safety concerns: Yes these cars could save some lives, but as with any new technology there's a margin of error, and the thought of being in that margin while cruising along at highway speeds will deter people.
• For the love of the road: Sure, it might make those morning commutes and road trips more tolerable, but let's not overlook how many people honestly love driving. A lot of people like hopping in the car and going for a drive, and this technology practically eliminates it.
• 'Green' technology: I'm not talking about hybrids here, I'm talking about money. Remember, Google is a business and businesses need to make money. Google has admitted they're not completely sure about monetizing this technology, and expensive experiments like this need strong financial backing to avoid an early death.
• The times they are a-changin' (but we don't like it): With the millions of people in this country, it's a given that wide, sweeping change is usually met with hesitation and scrutiny, and game-changing technology like this won't please everybody.

So whether you're already planning to be the first in line to buy one of these self-driving cars or writing an angry letter to Google as we speak, I offer the following advice. First, let's stay realistic, because we won't see these cars hit the public for a few years yet.

More importantly, both sides need to take the others' point of view into consideration, because regardless of who or what's controlling the car, we all need to drive on the same road.

Facebook Friday: All About Groups

The social media headlines the past couple of days have been dominated by stories about the new Facebook groups feature. And even as a social media professional, it took a while for me to wrap my head around the concept.

But for those who haven't heard (or just aren't sure what it's about), here's a brief breakdown:

• You can now create groups of friends centered around a certain topic (for instance, I'm part of the MN PRSA group).

• Members can post comments on the group page that other group members are notified about.

• There's a new group chat feature, where any and all members of a group can chat with each other rather than having to talk to each individual in separate chats.

That's the basic three-point breakdown of what these new group features are, but will they be a welcome addition?

An early complaint involves those notifications I mentioned in the second point. If you're part of a particularly large or talkative group, you may find yourself bombarded with emails and notifications about new posts and comments. You can limit these notifications or turn them off completely, but you must go into the group and do this manually.

Likewise, membership to the group is now opt-out as well. This means that if someone invites you, you're instantly added and must manually leave the group. And if a friend adds you to one of those large/talkative groups, chances are your inbox will be full of notification emails within minutes.

The one new feature here I do like is the group chat, which is effectively an AOL Instant Messenger-style chat room. I, like many, have had to deal with the frustration of having to chat with several mutual friends about the same topic in separate chats, but this group chat should eliminate this problem.

Regardless of how you feel about them, these changes will have a big impact on how Facebook is used. Naturally, it will take some time before we get a good handle on just how useful it really is, and we will definitely revisit this topic in the near future.

Video Post: Apple's Slice of the Pie

News outlets and blogs tend to jump all over any story about Apple or its upcoming products, but is it really dominating the news headlines like we think? There was a recent study done by the Pew Research Center that looked into that very topic, and Steve discusses it on today's Daily Axioms Video Post. You can find the article about the study here:

Final Cut Pro or Avid

As the video production intern, I want to give you my two cents in the age old debate: Final Cut Pro(FCP) vs Avid. Having used FCP and Avid I see both sides of the argument. Before coming to Axiom, I interned in New York City for City Lights Media Group. At City Lights I used Avid and became an advocate for Avid. Since coming to Axiom, I have switched to FCP.

Choosing between FCP and Avid is like choosing between what kind of car you want to drive. Mercedes or Lexus? Both will get you to work but one might be more expensive and have some features that other does not. With that said that does not mean the other is less attractive because it is more affordable. Avid is double the price of FCP. That is why 50% of the market sales for NLE's are going to FCP according to Apple.

In my experience with both, I've found out that Avid works better for bigger productions such as feature films and TV series. For example, last year's Oscar winner for best movie "Hurt Locker" was edited on Avid. On a feature film you might have multiple editors and Avid is more stream line for bigger productions. With Final Cut Pro it works better with smaller productions such as internet videos. Usually FCP users are the only ones who are editing. Also FCP is more user friendly and the learning curve is shorter.

They both will get the job done. There are few advantages for either systems but ultimately it's still your job as the editor to utilize the system and make a great finished product.

Here at Axiom, we run the full Final Cut Studio system. How about your shop? Avid or Final Cut Pro?

Panasonic's Upcoming Gaming Device Raises More Eyebrows Than Expectations

Taking a look around the techno-blogosphere, it's clear the "it" technology this year is the tablet. All the buzz right now focuses on iPads, Dell Streaks, Samsung Galaxies, and any mention or rumor of a new competitor in this fast-growing market.

The allure of these tablets are obviously the different functions they serve, whether it's as a laptop, media player or a gaming device. This means that if you're a device that only does one of those things (I'm looking at you, gaming devices), you've probably already seen your popularity slipping.

I've made this point before when talking about the impact of smartphones on gaming devices, but the latest move by Panasonic warrants a revisit to this topic. Panasonic is diving into the already-shallow waters of hand-held gaming devices with the upcoming release of the Panasonic Jungle.

It's a questionable move to say the least, because as I mentioned earlier, the hand-held gaming market has taken some serious hits over the last couple years due to the rise of smartphones and tablets.

This raises the obvious question; why doesn't Panasonic scrap the gaming-only device and focus on creating a tablet? They have the resources and the credibility, and a device that only does games provides serious limitations. A tablet could still be used for gaming, but would provide the added functionality and utility of a laptop.

I'm aware my suggestion is a hard left turn from where they were originally going, but if Panasonic is set on diving in to those gaming waters they might find that it's not so easy to stay afloat.