"This code is not pretty, but it doesn't need to be. It's only been 6 hours, but based on funding patterns I should be able to raise a few million off of this ;).
Yours,
Banksy The Lucky Stiff"
I concur, hard to see how a product that isn't particularly innovative and that I often find quite annoying merits an 8 million dollar investment.
The issue I see with Qwiki isn't necessarily that the product is poorly executed or annoying, but that it quite literally useless. It makes research less efficient and more difficult.
If I actually want to learn about something, I either want a truly cinematic experience (like BBC's Planet Earth or Carl Sagan's Cosmos) or I want to get the raw details (Wikipedia, books, etc.). Generating a video of already-existing content that's neither truly cinematic nor efficient makes very little sense to me.
EDIT:
A good example is the Khan Academy or Open Courseware actually. Qwiki is great for summarizing information you already know (why would I need a web site for that?), while human-generated content can actually disseminate topics to an extent that fosters learning.
Agreed. Another problem is that the experience is rather set in stone.
I thought this might be a cool way for my kids to learn about stuff. When I got into the beta, I noticed that not only can you not change the voice, but you also can't change the speed of reading. Pretty useless for younger kids, and I can't possibly imagine using it as an adult.
I submitted that feedback (several months ago now) and never heard back. Oh well.
I dont understand the negativity towards this product.
Qwiki service built into my xbox 360, internet connected TV and other internet/tv set top boxes would be a better search experience then what currently is found on Google TV and overall search on my TV doesnt exist yet. Also, qwiki in my car would be useful too!
Would i use qwiki over google on my laptop, desktop, smartphone or tablet ... no, but on things mentioned above i definitely would.
I'll admit I don't "get" internet TV beyond watching video on-demand. I have no first-hand experience with an internet connected TV, but the input devices must be just awful. I can barely stand searching for YouTube videos on my AppleTV.
As far as accessibility goes, the Wikipedia mobile web layout is awesome. It's a very slimmed down page where you can expand any section within the page, and functions very well on every mobile device I've ever tried.
And that brings up another point... when I want to read up on something, I'm coming in looking for a specific angle. One or two of those sections contain exactly what I'm looking for. No matter how great the computer voice is at reading the content, it's never going to automatically know what sections I'm most interested in.
So in summary: this is clumsy to navigate on devices most people don't care about (internet TVs?), slow and awkward on laptops, slower and more awkward on a mobile device, demands full attention to listen carefully for the piece of info you actually care about, and takes longer to actually deliver that info vs. skimming text on your own.
Cool .. ive had a computer connected to various TVs for a long while now. I havent had or paid for cable TV in years as the net provides me entertainment I seek for a ton less. Recently, I began using my xbox 360 more and have wished there was an elegant way to search and have it displayed on my tv. Especially when discussing things with friends while were sitting in front of the TV.
I think people really want a great Internet TV experience(see a video i made showing one of my INternet TV set ups http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-IryK4wsUM has 175K views)... we just havent gotten there yet. Qwiki is new and better suited for platforms we dont consume net on currently(the TV .. the car, etc...).
Well, it all depends on what you're looking for. Qwiki's videos are too short and shallow for me. With TED talks (and the whole host of other lectures available online), podcasts, and other human-generated content that's of extremely high quality, Qwiki only makes sense if I want to know what something is without depth. But if I wanted to know a quick fact or two, why would I sit down at a TV when I can pull it up on a smartphone portably or in a web browser instantly?
Qwiki would be better if it actually provided more depth, but providing a very rich, lengthy, and detailed cinematic experience automatically and algorithmically isn't as easy as cobbling together a few minutes of content.
Qwiki is certainly getting way more attention and hype than their "disruptive technology" deserves. You can't just add a screenreader to Wikipedia and call it innovation.
"This code is not pretty, but it doesn't need to be. It's only been 6 hours, but based on funding patterns I should be able to raise a few million off of this ;).
Yours, Banksy The Lucky Stiff"
I concur, hard to see how a product that isn't particularly innovative and that I often find quite annoying merits an 8 million dollar investment.