One of Orb's best features is the OrbLive iPhone application which connects with your home computer over the internet to provide access to your media library of audio, video, and photos. Through the mobile application, you can access any of your media files and play stream them over either a Wi-Fi or 3G connection. In the Windows version of the software, PC's with TV tuner cards can also connect you to live, streaming TV in addition to the other shared media saved on the PC's hard drive.

To some extent, Orb competes with Apple's own offerings since it provides access to music and video from either a desktop computer or an iPhone. That's why it was somewhat surprising that Apple ever approved the company's iPhone application to begin with. Even more surprising is that they allowed it to function over 3G when similar products - like Slingbox's SlingPlayer for iPhone, another live TV streaming app - are restricted to Wi-Fi only.

No Live TV for Mac Users Yet

Unfortunately, the Mac version is debuting without the live TV streaming functionality. According to Joe Costello, CEO of Orb Networks, support for live TV support will be added in subsequent versions. In the meantime, however, Mac users can install the Orb software to stream music, photos, videos, home movies and webcam feeds stored in iTunes to their iPhones or to any other internet-connected device including netbooks, notebooks, media players, game consoles and more. All that's needed is the new Mac OS X desktop software (works on OS X Intel 10.5 or later).

Those interested in trying out the new Mac version can grab the installer from here: orb.com/en/download_orb. For now, the Mac software is available in English only.

Lots of New Features

For now, only developers will have access to Android 2.0. Regular users won't be able to get their hands on this update until later this year.

The update features some impressive new functions, including support for synchronizing and managing multiple email accounts, an improved keyboard with a smarter dictionary and a browser that will be more like Safari on the iPhone, with support for double-tap zoom and HTML5.

Here are some of the new features that users can expect to see in Android 2.0:

Contacts and accounts

• Multiple accounts can be added to a device for email and contact synchronization, including Exchange accounts. (Handset manufacturers can choose whether to include Exchange support in their devices.)
• Developers can create sync adapters that provide synchronization with additional data sources.
• Quick Contact for Android provides instant access to a contact's information and communication modes. For example, a user can tap a contact photo and select to call, SMS, or email the person. Other applications such as Email, Messaging, and Calendar can also reveal the Quick Contact widget when you touch a contact photo or status icon.

Email

• Exchange support.
• Combined inbox to browse email from multiple accounts in one page.

Messaging

• Search functionality for all saved SMS and MMS messages.
• Auto delete the oldest messages in a conversation when a defined limit is reached.

Camera

• Built-in flash support
• Digital zoom
• Scene mode
• White balance
• Color effect
• Macro focus

Android virtual keyboard

• An improved keyboard layout makes it easier to hit the correct characters and improve typing speed.
• The framework's multi-touch support ensures that key presses aren't missed while typing rapidly with two fingers.
• A smarter dictionary learns from word usage and automatically includes contact names as suggestions.

Browser

• Refreshed UI with actionable browser URL bar enables users to directly tap the address bar for instant searches and navigation.
• Bookmarks with web page thumbnails.
• Support for double-tap zoom.
• Support for HTML5.

Calendar

• Agenda view provides infinite scrolling.
• Events indicate the attending status for each invitee.
• Invite new guests to events.

While consumers have been enjoying the service since its launch in 2007, happily watching free TV shows and movies over their PCs and even their TV sets thanks to Media Center plugins and other unofficial hacks, the company itself is still trying to navigate this new online landscape and effectively monetize their content. Now recent statements by a News Corp exec have people wondering: can Hulu make the ad-supported model work? Or does the company have other plans?

One of the primary objectives behind Hulu was to put free programming on the Internet to combat the rampant pirating of TV content that took place on sites like the popular file-sharing destination, The Pirate Bay. As iTunes did with music, the idea is to make using Hulu's service easier than having to go out and seek the illegal downloads.

Although iTunes charges for music on a per-file basis, Hulu, too has a business model that makes you pay - except in their case, you're paying with your eyeballs, not your credit card. Using video ads, Hulu has been attempting to monetize its service, but those efforts have been difficult at times. This spring, for instance, Screen Digest analyst Arash Amel claimed that Hulu had only sold about 60% of its ad inventory. "What we've seen is rapid growth in consumption, but the advertising isn't keeping up," he said.

While these figures, if accurate, could be reason for concern, many feel that the profitability of an online video venture of this nature takes time to develop. Eventually, the ad-supported model would work for Hulu as it has worked for numerous other websites and services, supporters claim.

Besides, more recent deals seem to bode well for the site. Case in point, this month the Publicis Groupe announced a mulit-million dollar ad deal that involved targeted advertising to particular Hulu demographics. The deal is said to represent a "significant increase" in spending on Hulu.

Hulu to Charge?

Despite the promises ad deals like this hold, there is still debate as to whether or not Hulu is going to stick to the ad-supported model or try something new. At a conference last week, News Corp. deputy chairman Chase Carey made a pronouncement regarding this point that raised more than a few eyebrows:

"I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value," Carey was quoted as saying by Broadcasting & Cable. "Hulu...needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business."

This seems to jibe with earlier reports where News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch also hinted at the site's plans to add premium services by saying, "Are we looking at it with a view toward adding subscription services and pay per view? Yes we are."

But "looking at" and "doing" are two very different things - where does Hulu stand now? Has their core philosophy - that is, their belief in the ad-supported model - changed?

According to AdWeek, it has not. In the article, the company claims their ad-supported free service is still the one that "resonates with the largest group of users" and that any additional models would just serve to complement that.

However, when we reached out to Hulu to ask about their plans regarding charging for content, the company wouldn't go on record with any such statement.

Why So Cagey?

Hulu's current decision to clam up could be taken in a few different ways. Perhaps they simply haven't decided what they're going to do about adding new premium services to Hulu and therefore don't want to discuss it at all.

Yet the quote they provided to AdWeek seems innocuous enough - so why not just stick with it? Why now choose to say nothing at all? Maybe they're hoping that with no quote, there is no story, and that will allow them to quell the impending panic among some users who are worried about Hulu's plans to make customers pay. Because some people are so opposed to paying for online content, just hearing reports that Hulu might change to a pay-to-stream model could dissuade them from continuing to use the service.

Then again, it could be that the opposite is true. Hulu wants to keep everyone wondering about what's coming next, generating excitement without providing any details. This means people can speculate wildly and give their opinions, allowing Hulu to tap into that online conversation about what people want before making any official decisions or announcements.

What We Think: Hulu Will Launch Value-Added Services

Despite any official confirmations from the company, we think it's pretty clear that Hulu has intentions to launch value-added services on top of its free, ad-supported model in the coming months. These may include pay-per-view options and some sort of subscription model. However, that subscription model would be there to provide users with value-added services that you couldn't get from the free model alone. Perhaps behind the scenes interviews? Sneak peeks? Actor interviews? Who knows...but the possibilities are endless.

As to why we think that, it comes down to simple math. We've now seen three different statements about these premium services: Carey's recent remarks, Murdoch's quote from earlier this year, and anonymous sources quoted by Dan Rayburn who hinted that Hulu's iPhone app won't launch until "Hulu rolls out a subscription based service."

...And They'll be Tied to the iPhone

The iPhone app, in fact, may be the real secret the company is trying to hide. Imagine if the much-rumored and highly anticipated application was linked to a subscription-based model. That could downright revolutionize the way people watch TV. Providing streaming content over the popular Apple smartphone would easily bring in additional revenue and that new source could quickly outperform the profits made by the ad-supported model.

Yet launching a Hulu iPhone app would be a challenge, as the company is undoubtedly aware. And, of course, Hulu wouldn't want to say anything about it, especially considering how difficult Apple is when it comes to applications that compete with their core services. Apple may not even approve such an application, claiming (rightly so) that it competes with iTunes.

However, Apple may be loosening up on that front, with no small thanks going to the FCC who recently questioned the company's rejection of the Google Voice application - a VoIP dialer that Apple rejected because it competed with what the iPhone does natively. (Apple claims they're "still reviewing" it, but no one really buys that.) Since the FCC's involvement, however, Apple has gone on to approve a streaming music app called Spotify, an application that many had feared would be rejected because it, even more so than Google Voice, competed with iTunes. That leaves us hopeful that a similar application launched by Hulu could also make it through the approval process.

Still, we wouldn't blame Hulu if they wanted to keep that extremely quiet. And that would certainly explain why Hulu won't comment on their plans.

Of course, this is all just speculation at this point, but we hope it turns out to be true.

Says Darya Gudkova, Head of Content Analysis & Research at Kaspersky Lab, "naturally, this type of advertising is more interesting and gets more hits." That's bad news for YouTube because when something works, spammers keep at it... with a vengeance. Once word gets around that video spam is more successful than traditional methods, there's no doubt that it will only increase.

How Would YouTube Handle Video Spam?

So what will YouTube do if video spam becomes a real problem on its network? We would like to think that it would take the offending content down, but that could be easier said than done. After all, this isn't like the copyrighted content that their Content Identification tool can easily identify and remove. That tool works by comparing unique signatures somewhat like a digital "fingerprint" from a content owner's copyrighted file to user uploads across the site. Then, if a match occurs, the copyright holder has the option to have the video taken down.

Identifying a spammer's video would be much harder. Just because someone is using YouTube to sell something, that doesn't necessarily mean it's video "spam." That moniker should only be reserved for videos which are truly undesirable messages where fraudulent activities are underway. The question is, how would YouTube know?

Assuming that video spam takes off, the best thing the site could do to police online content is to include a "report spam" button for videos themselves, as it now has for video comments only. 

Of course, for potential victims of video spam, the best thing is not to get duped into visiting YouTube in the first place. Spam filters will simply have to adapt to this new technique. Unfortunately, that will be yet another challenge for Google, which, in addition to owning YouTube, also offers a feature in its webmail product Gmail that automatically embeds any YouTube videos referenced in the email directly in the message itself. That makes it even more convenient for video spammers, who wouldn't have to convince their victims to leave their inbox and launch a new browser window: just click a button on the video embedded below.

For the time being, these ads are only available in the U.S. and in English, though Google plans to launch them in other regions and languages as well.

Google has obviously struggled to turn YouTube into a profitable business unit. Taking YouTube ads out of the YouTube silo could help Google to win over more advertisers and give current advertisers more reasons to buy ads on YouTube.

NBC's Zucker also hinted at the company's interest in the matter. "Whether there are other ways to monetize Hulu down the road, it is something that we are open to, something we will explore," he said, but like Murdoch, reiterated "there are no plans at this time."

Subscription Services Already in Testing?

While that may be the official company line, other sites are reporting a slightly different variation on this story. The Business of Video blog, for example, says they've been in contact with sources who have confirmed that Hulu is already beta testing a subscription-based service internally and is working out the technical requirements. If that story is to be believed, the offering won't go live anytime this year as Hulu still needs to figure out the details of the business plan.

Whether or not that rumor is true, it wouldn't be surprising to hear that Hulu is working on such a project, given their obvious interest in adding more revenue-generating features to the site. Zucker himself even updated his ongoing conference comment about "analog dollars" being used to chase "digital dimes." (In 2008, it was "digital pennies.") "Certainly by next year the goal should be at least quarters," he joked.

What We Want to See: Premium Channels on Hulu

Subscription services would be a brilliant way to chase those quarters, indeed. Perhaps it could even convince cable-only paid channels like HBO and Showtime to get on board with the venture. They've already tentatively given iTunes a shot, but still seem reluctant to share current episodes in a timely fashion on that service. The reason for the networks' timidity is because their iTunes revenue simply doesn't compare to their cable TV subscription offerings or even their DVD sales. (Ironically, that's probably due to the fact that they don't offer current programs via iTunes!). Instead, they would rather entice consumers to subscribe by tempting them with their backcatalog of programming.

However, if the situation was to change and consumers could subscribe to these channels online for a comparable fee to what the companies generate through cable TV distribution, would they continue to put up such resistance? After all, money is money, who cares where it comes from?

These days, more and more consumers are pinching pennies by cancelling cable subscriptions thanks to the numerous alternatives available online. Obviously, premium channels are getting the boot, too. Imagine if they could have a chance to win back some of those penny-pinching former subscribers by way of an online subscription service. After all, what would you give for piecemeal plans that let you buy a 3-month pass to HBO instead of the all-or-nothing combo packages available via your cable TV provider?

Of course, all this is just wishful thinking on our part, but if Hulu does it right, the possibilities for their new TV distribution network are virtually endless.

In 2004, the Federal Communications Commission and the Motion Picture Association of America attempted a similar enforcement regarding the US transition from analog to digital television broadcasting. However, by 2005 the broadcast flag was thrown out and regulators argued that the FCC lacked the authority to ask for HD encryption.

Photo Credit: Josh Bonain of Grooveshark