Controversial European privacy rules that require websites to inform users about the cookies are finally hitting Britain this weekend. The country’s startups, however, seem to be taking no notice of them.

“We’re ignoring it and waiting to see who gets sued and what happens,” one London-based startup co-founder told me this week. “We have a ton of revenue-generating work that needs to be done. This is just a distraction that does nothing for the business except waste time and resource.”

The rules, which were originally passed by European regulators in 2009, require users to give consent for non-critical data that websites want to store on their computer — typically through a pop-up dialog telling them about cookies that cover things like advertising and analytics.

But the idea of complying — even if it is the law — doesn’t seem to be cutting much mustard with British web entrepreneurs.

Another unrepentant entrepreneur summed up the mood: he would “ignore it until threatened with legal action,” he told me.

So: what we have is a law that is being ignored by the people it’s meant to apply to. Sound confusing?

That’s because it is. The directive was originally supposed to come into force last year, but when it became apparent that few businesses were ready to cope with the changes by the middle of 2011, Britain’s privacy watchdog, the Information Commissioner’s Office, put the deadline back by a year.

Twelve months on, some larger businesses have started to comply with the rules. To take a couple of examples, the Financial Times recently added a pop-up asking users for permission to place tracking cookies, while the BBC has also started asking visitors for their consent.

But the reaction from small companies seems much the same as it was a year ago.

One problem is the half-hearted approach being taken by the ICO, which has never quite bought into the directive. Recently the Information Commissioner David Smith said that although he had the power to fine non-compliant websites as much as £500,000 for breaching privacy regulations, he was not going “suddenly going to launch a torrent of enforcement action.”

Instead, the organization has said it will write to 50 of the U.K.’s most-trafficked websites to remind them of the rules and give them 28 days to comply.

That approach may carry weight with large organizations that don’t want to risk becoming a test case, but it will take forever to trickle down to startup world, where criticism has been vociferous.

Doug Monro of listings startup Adzuna told me that the lack of clarity about the way the rules were supposed to be implemented and enforced simply added to the air of confusion around the issue.

“The rules are clear as mud and, as far as anyone strictly interprets them, stupid,” he said. “Privacy-sensitive users can just change their browser settings or install a tracking-cookie-blocker if they want to reject cookies. The web as we know it would be virtually unusable without any cookies being used, or having to customize my cookie preferences on some pop-up on each of the hundreds of sites I visit.”

Photograph of woman copyright Shutterstock/Kuzmik

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1
• Facebook’s IPO filing: ideas and implications

Coming into force in the UK on Saturday, Article 5(3) of the E-Privacy Directive (happy reading) says EU countries have to make sure consumers are “offered the right to refuse” cookies being downloaded onto their computers by web services, in all but essential cases. They also have to give “clear and comprehensive information” about what the cookies are for.

The deadline for all this was late May 2011. A year on, eight member states – Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovenia – have yet to even transpose the directive into their national laws, let alone start enforcing it.

And in the other 19 countries, there’s a pretty big variation in how national laws interpret the directive. It should also be pointed out that the UK is something of a special case here, in that its data protection authority gave businesses an extra 12 months to comply (ending on Saturday). The rest are already enforcing their updated laws.

But before looking at what they’re enforcing, let’s go back to the rationale behind all this, from the perspective of digital agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes:

If you log in to a web service, the cookie that remembers that you are logged in is fine – and indeed this makes our lives a whole lot easier online. But a cookie that is used to build a profile of what you are doing online is less OK: it might mean that your web surfing over time (searches, web pages visited, the content viewed, etc.) is tracked, for example in order to match ads against your interests as determined from the profile. The use of such cookies requires your consent,” Kroes blogged earlier this year.

“Consent” is the key word here, and it can be interpreted in several ways.

In countries such as Latvia, a strict opt-in principle is in play. That means the user has to agree to almost every cookie being installed on their machines, and browser settings that give the all-clear to cookies are not enough to imply informed consent.

If you’re operating in Spain or Luxembourg, the law demands that users opt into cookies, but accepts that browser settings are satisfactory. In Finland or Bulgaria, the users don’t even have to opt in – they just have to be given an opportunity to opt out – and browser settings are again an accepted way of communicating cookie preferences.

Austria demands opt-in, but browser settings may be OK (the law is open to interpretation). France is fine with opt-out and also with browser settings, as long they’re not over-general. The UK doesn’t demand strict opt-in but it also doesn’t see browser settings as a satisfactory solution.

Portugal’s implementation doesn’t even mention cookies, so it’s hard to say what the rules are there.

Confused yet? You’re not the only one, and Kroes knows it. She’s a savvy operator and she’s also not the one who came up with the E-Privacy Directive – that was her predecessor Viviane Reding, now the justice commissioner.

Which is probably why Kroes has been pushing like mad to get a consistent solution implemented within the technology itself. That would be the ‘Do Not Track’ (DNT) browser feature, which, as the name suggests, gives users a way to set their cookie preferences within the browser rather than for every specific site – preferences that website providers are supposed to respect.

Google, Yahoo, AOL, Mozilla, Microsoft, Apple and Twitter have all signed up to implement and/or respect DNT preferences. Facebook, you will be astonished to hear, has not.

As explained above, DNT will not in itself be an answer to the cookie problem in some countries. However, there are countries such as the Netherlands and Lithuania where legislators have decided that it’s only current browsers that don’t offer satisfactory cookie settings. In those cases, a proper implementation of DNT may pass muster, bringing those countries in line with the relaxed majority.

So for all those online publishers and marketers grousing about the UK’s implementation of the cookie law, consider these points:

• Some other EU countries have stricter rules.
• Sooner or later, you’re going to come up against the consent issue from a technical as well as legislative standpoint anyway.
• The UK Information Commissioner’s Office seems keen to play fair, hence the 12-month extension. But consider this quote: “We will allow for a greater focus on wilful non-compliance by letting those who are making genuine attempts to comply get on with the job without unnecessary interference from the regulator.” In other words, do make some attempt to play along.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Privacy Legislation’s Potential Impact on Online Media
• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated

But whether they’re outraged, scrabbling in terror, or simply hoping it goes away, it’s the privacy rule that European startups can’t ignore. But what exactly is the so-called “cookie directive”?

As the rules finally come into force in the U.K., we take a look at the details.

What is it?

Let’s start by giving the rule its proper name: it’s EU Directive 2009/136/EC (PDF), known as the E-Privacy Directive. The broad legislation was first passed into European law two years ago, essentially forming a series of amendments to federal rules regarding electronic communications and data privacy.

Specifically, there is one section of that directive — Article 5(3) — that applies to the use of data storage by websites. And for the most part, that boils down to cookies.

Member States shall ensure that the storing of information, or the gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information… about the purposes of the processing.

Forget the legalese, here’s the bottom line: under the rules, which cover the whole of the European Union, websites must ask visitors for their consent before they can install most cookies.

Unsurprisingly, it’s a little bit more complicated than that.

First, this rule — championed by European Commissioner Neelie Kroes — doesn’t actually apply to cookies alone — it still counts if you use HTML5 local storage, for example. But the reality is that because cookies are so widespread, they have become central to the way the rule is being interpreted.

Second, it doesn’t ban cookies — it just needs consent from users before they can be installed (which can, in some cases, be given through browser settings).

And third, not all cookies are subject to the rules. Data that’s considered necessary for the basic functioning of the website — the session cookies used for tracking a basket of goods up to the checkout, for example — don’t require consent, because it’s implied by the simple fact they’re trying to use the site in the first place.

What’s the point?

The idea is to give users more control over who knows what about them, and how it’s used. As part of a wider directive, it’s an attempt to harmonize laws across European member states around things like data retention and privacy.

And lawmakers have good reason to think that website tracking is an important issue: a recent study by Truste said that the typical British web page uses 14 different tools to track user behavior — usually without their knowledge.

Why is it being brought in now?

The directive was first passed in 2009, and the wheels of European regulation spin very, very slowly. Many countries have struggled to make the federal rule mesh with their own local implementation and privacy laws. By the time the original deadline for adoption arrived in 2011, only Denmark and Estonia had enacted national laws that were deemed compliant.

Just over a year ago, faced with mass non-compliance, the U.K. took the unique decision to defer adoption for one year — though whether it had the authority to do so is disputed.

In any case, that year is up.

Where does it cover?

The rule is already theoretically in force across Europe, but the truth is that it’s a complete patchwork. It comes into force in the U.K. on May 26, 2012.

Who does it affect?

Pretty much everybody based in Europe who runs a web-based business is subject to the directive. Anyone headquartered or with offices in Europe is subject to the law, or will eventually be. And unlike some online regulation, it doesn’t matter where your servers are based, but where your business is directed.

Typical services that will definitely fall under the rules include website analytics, advertising — particularly third-party advertising — or recommendations. Essentially anything that is not completely intrinsic to the functioning of the site.

And how is it meant to be implemented?

The most common approach seems to be a check box that users are presented with when they first visit a site:

Here’s the BBC’s approach. It’s fairly typical.

But that’s what has so many startups up in arms, since they believe this step will lose them valuable traffic, dissuade users, lose them money and — potentially — hand power over to American startups that aren’t subject to the same regulations.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Google and the Ghost of Silicon Valley Past
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1
• Facebook’s IPO filing: ideas and implications

Do we need to #saveyoutube?

Ever since YouTube embarked on its ambitious plan to bring more TV-quality content on its site by giving content producers a reported $100 million in advances and rolling out an ambitious redesign, there has been talk whether this will hurt small-time producers. Some content creators have actually taken issue with the site’s new design. Others have alleged new algorithms rolled out this spring are hurting their views, and a few even started a #saveyoutube Twitter campaign this week.

For its part, YouTube has said that recent changes have overall been positive for creators. “Net daily subscriptions are up 50% since January and watch time has been increasing in the past 2 months,” the YouTube team wrote in a blog post in response to the #saveyoutube campaign a few days ago.

So when I caught up with DeFranco during a phone call this week, I wanted to know what he thought about the whole controversy: With YouTube becoming more professional, are people left behind? “I don’t think this is hurting people that aren’t part of it,” he told me with respect to the new channel initiative, and added: “Most of these troubles that people are seeing right now are normal YouTube troubles.” YouTube content creators always had to be flexible enough to adjust to changes on the site, he explained.

Time to found a new network

So is all well in YouTube land? Not exactly. “Smaller YouTubers need to evolve, because it is a very toxic world out there,” DeFranco told me. It’s hard for up-and-coming producers to get noticed at all, he said. And when they finally catch a lucky break and one of their videos goes viral, they’re bound to get offers of help from all the wrong places.

DeFranco is particularly critical of networks and third-party service providers that promise YouTube producers the big breakthrough but do not deliver. “You see all these people with their services, which for the most part take advantage (of content creators),” he complained.

He’s heard the tale of people being fed up with networks that tied them up with long-term contracts all too often – and has started to think about alternatives: “How do we bring up the next batch of YouTubers without hurting them? Without taking advantage of them?” The answer: Phil DeFranco is going to start his own network on YouTube.

Give artists an audience, and money

He didn’t share many details on how this network is going to look like, and instead only said that it would be fairer than many of the efforts that are out there already. But if you want to get an idea of its spirit, you may have to look no further than to a show that Sourcefed is scheduled to launch in two months.

The show will focus exclusively on music, art and other forms of creativity, with the goal of establishing direct connections between artists and their audience. One example: DeFranco’s team will capture the making of a mural via stop-motion animation, then turn it into a short clip and also sell prints of the artwork on YouTube itself. The idea is to give artists a big boost for their audience, but also offer them a chance to actually make money with their art.

In other words: DeFranco wants others to benefit from his massive audience as well. “We are in a really fortunate situation to fix things that are broken,” he told me.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1
• Flash analysis: future opportunities for Pinterest
• New challenges for the IT organization

Facebook’s Prineville data center.

As the world we live in continues to develop better technologies and new and exciting ways of communicating, our demand for energy grows. Data centers are the engines that drive our connected world, processing the billions of daily transactions, comments and interactions in our digital society. More data equals more energy – and this is starting to become a big headache from a sustainability perspective.

If a singular data center can consume the equivalent energy of 180,000 homes, exactly how large is the overall impact on our planet, and what is being done about it?

Data on energy & computing

Sourcing reliable figures on datacenter output and its effect on the world is difficult, due in part to the fast rate of growth as well as rapidly changing technology and business models. However, the main factor that defines a lack of accurate data has been the unwillingness of major IT brands to act transparently in their operations. Historically, cloud brands have not been willing to disclose information through fear of revealing competitive advantage or disadvantage in operations.

According to a 2007 report from iClimate on global e-sustainability, the world’s data centers and telecommunications networks used a combined electricity of 623 billion kWh. What does that number mean? Well, if the cloud were a country, it would have the fifth largest electricity demand in the world, sitting somewhere between India and Japan on the global energy consumption charts.

The report also indicates that cloud-serving data centers are responsible for 2 percent of the world’s annual CO2 emissions – a figure that has likely grown in the five years since the reports creation. Two percent may not sound like a massive amount, but when you consider how much the ecosystem of data has changed since 2007, that 2 percent could easily become 4 percent in a very short time frame.

The exponential growth in data consumption both at home with super-fast broadband and on the go with 3G and 4G data connections have meant that 2007’s figure really no longer applies. However Greenpeace’s 2010 report “Make IT Green,” predicts the demand for data center electricity will more than triple over the next five years, resulting in an energy demand totaling that of France, Germany, Canada and Brazil combined.

The largest culprit for the massive spike in data seen recently is the mobile industry. Mobile data traffic in 2011 was eight times the size of the entire internet in 2000. By the end of 2012 the number of connected devices is expected to exceed the global population. This mobile boom is largely down to large scale adoption in emerging markets. As of January 2012 India had 0ver 900 million mobile connections and could become the largest mobile market in the world in terms of revenue. As hardware costs fall and functionality increases, this adoption will only continue to rise, and the data serving providers need to expand to accommodate the increased demand.

Cell phone towers on the sky line of Old Delhi.

Location, location, location

So, what can cloud providers do about this mass demand for energy? The future of the industry and how it operates is largely down to 3 things; location, self sufficiency and transparency.

When choosing siting for a new data center, there are a number of considerations. There has to be an adequate availability of affordable electricity, telecommunications infrastructure as well as tax incentives, climate and proximity to end-users.

While many areas of the world can offer these considerations in abundance, the future of a green cloud is dependent on just two. Many cloud companies considering self hosted data are moving to cooler climes to make the most of the ‘free cooling’ benefits. Free cooling is the use of external air for hardware cooling.

Traditionally nearly half of a data center’s power consumption comes from cooling the rooms of servers that physically hold the data. These behemoth computers generate a massive amount of heat, and as such require constant chilling. By locating your data centre in an area of naturally low temperatures, such as the Nordic countries, providers can half their consumption by drawing in the chilled outside air. This shift is already starting to happen as providers find the financial benefits a driving force, and the green outcome an added perk.

The second consideration to location is positioning in relation to a renewable energy source. Many of the worlds largest data center’s are driven by coal and gas. This is classed as dirty energy, however a number of providers are making the move to sustainability through renewable energy

Facebook built its third major data center in Lulea, Sweden – a location chosen for the large amount of existing hydroelectric capacity at high availability. The data center is fully powered with renewable energy from an outer source.

The problem with the location fix is that a huge number of data centers already exist in areas that do not have access to renewable energy sources. For these providers, often their only choice for external power is coal. A growing number of cloud companies are taking matters into their own hands and creating their own source of energy.

The one thing a data center has going for it is size. If we take i/o Data Centers as an example, their facility in Phoenix, Arizona has an enormous 580,000 sq ft footprint that has allowed them to install 5,000 solar panels in an array that will generate a total of 4.5MW at peak capacity. Though this is just a fraction of the 100MW demand, the solar panels will be married with thermal storage technology to reduce the energy drain of cooling during the heat of the day.

Apple has recently announced a 20MW solar array and has also invested in a 5MW fuel cell device on site in Maiden, NC. The industry is starting to sit up and listen.

A company like Google, Amazon, Facebook or Apple has enormous clout in the areas they operate. These tech giants are big fish to the local utility firms, who will all be vying to supply them with power upon creation of new centers. By negotiating renewable energy with the utilities, corporations can begin to change the coal driven ecosystem and drive the industry towards a brighter future.

IT and cloud providers have a duty to research renewable energy sources and implement sustainable power solutions. As well as this duty to source green energy, they also have a duty to report on it. By releasing figures on energy output, full research can be engaged and better solutions and energy standards can be created.

The future of our technological advancement is no longer down to competition and advantage. Providers need to work together to create a better plan for our engorging power drain so that we have a future to enjoy the technology in.

Jason Currill is founder and CEO of Ospero, a global Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) company. The company, through a federated cloud strategy, has one of the largest ubiquitous, single vendor cloud platforms in the world. Before founding Ospero, Jason, a seasoned technology Executive with over 15 years international sales experience, worked with Cisco Systems, Business Objects (a SAP company) and NetSuite, in charge of both EMEA and NA territories. Prior to his career in IT, Jason worked on the London International Financial Futures Exchange (LIFFE) for almost 10 years as a Futures Trader.

Ospero’s distribution-as-a-service (DaaS) offering, helps business rollout global SaaS instances without vendors having to worry about legal compliance, latency issues and privacy headaches. All of Ospero’s data centers comply with the ISO 4001 standard. The company believes in green and has recently been praised by external assessors for the maturity of their environmental management systems. This article is written by Jason Currill, CEO of Ospero.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Ups and downs for cleantech in Q1
• After Solyndra: analyzing the solar industry
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1

Alt-transportation overload! Why is San Francisco so chock-full of these services? I’ve been thinking about it for awhile and I’ve got a pretty good idea. Here’s why I think it is:

Tech, startup cluster: One of the more obvious reasons is just the vibrant startup and developer ecosystem in San Francisco. Most of these alternative transportation services are reliant on mobile and web technology development, and having a strong developer and startup ecosystem here means there’s more of a braintrust of young creators willing to work on these tools. For example Scoot Networks’ secret sauce is based on using the iPhone as a dashboard for an electric scooter and Zimride’s new mobile app connects commuters and drivers in real time. In addition, local tech companies can provide the testing ground for some of these projects — both Ridepal and Scoot Networks are starting off by selling services to fellow tech companies.

Muni, BART, taxis and parking suck: There’s actually a real need for alternative transportation in San Francisco. Unlike in New York, where you can get a cab in most places pretty easily, and the subways system is pretty efficient, San Francisco’s public transportation and taxi services are pretty lacking. There are also a lot of commuters that come into San Francisco, but there’s very little affordable parking downtown.

San Franciscans are early adopters: San Francisco-ans have always been early adopters, given the city is the heart of the Valley and was the location of the birth of the Internet. Services that are reliant on iPhone use can actual gain traction here, because of the high penetration of iPhones. San Franciscans also care more than most about trying to have more eco-friendly, and more energy efficient, transportation, like car sharing and ride sharing.

Small enough: San Francisco is also compact and small enough that a startup can launch a pilot project here and can actually cover a decent amount of the city. While the same pilot project might be overwhelmed in Manhattan, San Francisco can offer a more compact scale with which to experiment.

City support: The city of San Francisco is actually generally very supportive of these types of transportation. Anything that can help alleviate the public transportation systems and parking spots in downtown can potentially get support from the city.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Cleantech, meet connectivity: a new era of energy efficiency
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Ups and downs for cleantech in Q1

“Ultimately, this case is about consumer choice,” said Dish in a complaint filed Thursday in Manhattan federal court. The satellite TV provider wants the court to declare that it is not infringing copyright or breaching the terms of its contracts with Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS. Meanwhile, the Hollywood Reporter reports that Fox has filed a separate suit against Dish to “aggressively defend the future of free, over-the-air television.”

Dish’s ad-skipping device stands out because, unlike other DVRs, viewers can skip an entire set of commercials rather than fast-forwarding or skipping in 30 second jumps.

The so-called “ad eraser” may delight consumers, but the TV networks reacted angrily during a conclave with advertisers in New York last week.

“How does Charlie Ergen expect me to produce ‘CSI’ without commercials?” said chief executive of CBS Corporation, Leslie Moonves, according to the New York Times. (Also, see my colleague Daniel Frankel’s excellent report on the strategy behind Dish’s “Molotov cocktail” at the broadcasters.)

In its complaint, Dish portrays its technology as a natural extension of existing time-shifting practices and points out that Americans have for decades chosen to disregard ads in one way or another.

Dish also claims that its technology does not alter the broadcasters’ signals and that viewers can only skip the ads the day after a show is aired live.

The TV networks are facing significant disruptions despite receiving new fees that oblige cable and satellite providers to pay them for carrying their over-the-air signals. In addition to its legal tussle with Dish over ad skipping, the TV networks are also suing Aereo, a start-up service that uses tiny antennas to broadcast shows directly to viewers’ iPads and iPhones.

Here’s a copy of Dish’s complaint:

Dish v TV Networkshttp://www.scribd.com/embeds/94727377/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-206ttdhsm6nafzerpogj

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

Jim Bankoff, Chairman and CEO, Vox Media

Data helps destroy containers, and that’s a good thing. Data creates new content and information experiences and helps bring an end to the notion of content silos, Betaworks’ John Borthwick said: “The moment you start thinking about it as information, you start to think less about the package and more about the users.” Forrester’s James McQuivey pointed out that it’s not just a “tablet or iPad world,” but an “everything world” — and millions of people are consuming content not on iPads or e-readers but on gaming systems like the Xbox 360.

Digital storytelling is a native art. Stories on the Internet are not a new form of magazine or newspaper stories, but a medium in their own right — just like radio or TV. Publishers should develop their platforms accordingly rather than just repurposing other print vehicles. When Wenner Media released Us Weekly on iPad for the first time, it figured out a way to enable the “passalong” that’s so popular with the magazine’s print edition. As Vox Media CEO Jim Bankoff told us, George Lucas had to build a new story-telling platform called Lucasfilm so that he could tell the story of “Star Wars.” And don’t say blogging is dead: “That’s like saying creativity is dead, or personal expression is dead,” said WordPress founder Matt Mullenweg.

Om Malik interviews John Borthwick, founder and CEO, Betaworks.

Not all “media” are created equal. Union Square’s Fred Wilson and Betaworks’ John Borthwick gave a rude awakening to Big Media executives, urging them to give up control of their content — and even to stop calling it “content.” But declaring new digital networks victors over somewhat different traditional print and broadcast operators after simply labelling each “media” can sometimes seem counterproductive and insufficient: What’s being created now are entirely new kinds of information vehicles. The industry is truly “at the crossroads” suggested by the paidContent 2012 conference’s subtitle– but technologists and information producers may now be heading in different directions, as well as speaking different languages.

Publishers have to sell their brands directly to consumers. “Publishing companies need to understand that the thing [companies] like Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other retailers really respect is a brand,” Pottermore CEO Charlie Redmayne said in an explanation of why those companies agreed to send customers directly to the Pottermore site to buy e-books. “If we’ve demonstrated anything, it’s the power of a brand,” he said, noting that over half of Pottermore’s e-book sales result from readers coming directly to the site instead of being referred there by the retailers. Not every brand is Harry Potter — but “need to understand that their role in the future is creating these brands,” Redmayne said.

It’s time to toss CPM as a yardstick for online advertising success. How can Facebook be so inept at advertising? Because it’s handing advertisers a sledgehammer not a scalpel. Betaworks’ Borthwick and GigaOM’s Om Malik say it’s time to discard old-fashioned display ads as the basic unit of online ad success. Instead, it’s time for advertisers to adapt their ads to the evolving nature of the internet itself. That means forgetting about CPMs and focusing on data and social dynamics. On a broader level, it means re-imagining basic precepts of advertising and product discovery in a world where Web pages are being eclipsed by new types of online discovery and interaction.

If you didn’t make it to the TimesCenter yesterday, you’ll find video of all yesterday’s panels here (registration required). And let us know your takeaways from the day in the comments.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

Waterstones lacks an e-reader strategy, and Barnes & Noble’s Nook device had appeared a candidate to fill the gap. Another big UK retailer, WH Smith, has thrown its lot in with Nook rival Kobo.

Now Nook may need to advance internationally with apps on hardware other than its own, and with Microsoft, rather than local high street retailers, as its key partner…

http://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F47328667&auto_play=false&show_artwork=true&color=ff3500

Speaking to me after our panel interview at paidContent 2012, Barnes & Noble’s digital newsstand and emerging content GM Jonathan Shar said:

“We’re excited to look at those (international) opportunities. The recent Microsoft announcement and the formation of NewCo allows us to think even more globally, as Windows 8 is a global platform.

“As we develop Nook experiences and reading apps for Windows 8, we’ve got to think beyond the U.S. and think globally.

“We’re looking at all our options. We think the value proposition we’ve built with the Nook brand translates outside of the U.S. and will look across that.

“In the U.S., we have both the Nook devices but also great Nook reading apps across multiple platforms. We’re looking at that strategy outside the U.S. – what the mix will be is to be determined.

“We’re evaluating the international market in many markets. We anticipate that there will be competition in these markets. We’re prepared for all that.”

Putting Nook in to a new business co-owned by Microsoft will allow Barnes & Noble to deliver Nook apps and services on new Windows 8 tablets.

A solely apps-and-services strategy may be a useful fallback strategy for Barnes & Noble overseas. But it’s not the same as selling the Nook e-reader, the Trojan Horse for those services, as well.

Now Amazon’s Waterstones deal means Barnes & Nobile has lost to its biggest rival the opportunity to sell that device through the UK’s biggest bookseller.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A global mobile handset forecast: 2011-2015
• A look back at mobile in Q1
• Survey: the next wave of enterprise mobility

Karen Petraska, an executive in NASA’s CIO office, told attendees of the Uptime Symposium on Tuesday that the agency is scaling back development now that the OpenStack has hit the commercialization stage, according to a report in Web Host Industry Review. Rackspace launched its OpenStack public cloud early this month and Hewlett-Packard put its public cloud iteration into beta soon thereafter so there is no shortage of OpenStack cloud suppliers.

According to the report, Petraska said rather than competing with cloud providers, NASA wants to be a “smart consumer” of commercial cloud services. She also said NASA would stop development for the OpenStack-related Nebula infrastructure-as-a-platform project. Petraska could not be reached for comment but other sources close to OpenStack confirmed the report.

NASA’s move is not surprising given the context. For one thing, the space agency — which is already navigating a new role as the U.S. discontinued the space shuttle effort — is really not a software development shop. When NASA and Rackspace started down this road two years ago many of the NASA software developers were actually contractors at a company called ANSO Labs, which Rackspace subsequently acquired. Many of the rest of the NASA OpenStack contingent also left the agency to pursue OpenStack-related work at Rackspace or other companies, including Nebula (not the same thing as the Nebula project Petraska mentioned ) or Piston Computing (see disclosure).

OpenStack is viewed by proponents as cloud infrastructure that will let them offer cloud services that can compete with Amazon Web Services. Other OpenStack backers include IBM, Red Hat and Cisco.

Disclosure: Piston is backed by True Ventures, a venture capital firm that is an investor in the parent company of this blog, Giga Omni Media. Om Malik, founder of Giga Omni Media, is also a venture partner at True.

Feature photo courtesy of Flickr user NASA Goddard Photo and Video

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Infrastructure Q1: IaaS Comes Down to Earth; Big Data Takes Flight
• Infrastructure Q3: OpenStack and flash step into the spotlight
• Infrastructure Q2: Big data and PaaS gain more momentum