4 ms·

Facebook Billionaire Eduardo Saverin Leads Qwiki’s $8 Million Round

32 points by bjonathan 16y ago

clyfe 16y ago
Search with voice, pictures and interaction. VS "a drastically improved information experience provided via interactive video"
marcofloriano 16y ago
Alá boa garoto. Fico muito feliz em saber que o brazuca está se saindo bem depois daquela palhaçada que fizeram com ele no Facebook.
weston 16y ago
Good for Qwiki! That site blew my mind when I first went to it. I've showed it to a bunch of non-techies and they all have the same "woah!" reaction as well.
- klenwell 16y ago
  This is the first I've heard of the site so I just had a look. It is very polished. But is there anything to it beyond the "woah!" factor? I checked out the Goya page and it provided a fairly shallow flash montage about him. I see it won award from TechCrunch, which describes the site as disruptive. The interface, while slick, seems like it would be an interference to any practical usage. Is there more to it? Genuinely curious.
  - weston 16y ago
    I think it's just a different way to absorb information that is already out there. An analogy could be: A student watching a video lesson in the classroom verses (or in addition to) reading a book. People are different in the ways they consume information and learn things.
- ctide 16y ago
  Yes, I had the same "whoa!" reaction, then never went back because it's a terribly ineffective way to acquire information.
aditya42 16y ago
I think Qwiki's main website should have been linked here, not the story on TC. I would vote up that one.
trotsky 16y ago
Like most reporters during the bubble, in my early startup-focused writing, I lavished too much attention on the investors. My then-editor David Churbuck would call me into his office, sit me down and tell me that investors are a good way to judge if a company is worthy of a story. He would tell me that investment dollars and investors help you define a story, but they are never the story. http://gigaom.com/2010/11/09/repeat-after-me-investors-are-never-the-story/ http://gigaom.com/2010/11/09/repeat-after-me-investors-are-n...
- dstein 16y ago
  To techcrunch's defense, their writers really don't have any idea what technology is. They actually think when a company receives money it is technology. Just like they think blogging a rumor or opinion is journalism. So, to techcrunch when they hear a juicy blog-worthy rumor about somebody receiving money, they truly believe it is technology news.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  At least Techcrunch is able to identify his religion in the bio box at the bottom. </sarcasm> [edit] This guy's religion is not mentioned... http://eu.techcrunch.com/2011/01/19/former-nokia-guru-turns-his-hand-to-angel-investing/ http://eu.techcrunch.com/2011/01/19/former-nokia-guru-turns-...
grannyg00se 16y ago
I'm a bit underwhelmed. It looks like the basic formula for initial research on the web. A quick wikipedia first paragraph overview, followed by google images if relevant. Plus voice. But most of us read faster than voice communication so that's not an improvement for efficient search. Also, when reading we can skim or jump to the wikipedia index if desired to get right to the portion of interest. I suppose I'm missing the big picture, but combining wikipedia, google images, and voiceover doesn't blow me away. I do think that the presentation of the pictures is really nice. But again, probably less efficient than simply looking at google's image results. The qwiki experience provides a more entertaining experience at the expense of efficient and effective searching. Admittedly, I wouldn't be surprised if that is a tradeoff that many people are excited to embrace.
- ZachPruckowski 16y ago
  I suspect most people will find Qwiki cool for the novelty, but when it comes down to brass tacks and actually trying to learn something, I think Wikipedia's going to win out for everyone over the age of 13.
  - phlux 16y ago
    But that is still valuable! Imagine a curated syllabus using Qwiki for K-5th grade topics that can be shown to children ALL OVER THE WORLD and effectively provide a basic level of education to every single kid on the planet. Pipe a data feed to some location, build a syllabus of information and let may kids get a ton of information. Sure, the depth that you would want them to have will require more affort - but there is nothing wrong with that. I just dont think that too many people are looking at technologies like Qwiki with much vision. They are still thinking in the past. Edit: Also - imagine if there was a "depth slider" on a qwiki - you could have it give a cursory overview of what algebra is, slide it to the right - and have it give more info and some examples - further still and you get actual lessons - further still and you get lectures from OpenCourseware etc..etc...
    - alnayyir 16y ago
noamsml 16y ago
Qwiki seems mostly to me like an attempt to "multimedia-ize" the information on the web. This seems the wrong way to go. What the web is lacking isn't breadth or engagement capacity. Hell, Wikipedia has engagement capacity. What the web lacks is information with the depth, quality and low entry barrier of textbooks. You can have depth and quality with stuff like Google Scholar, but the barrier of entry is absurd, and you can have breadth with a plethora of other sites, but without expertise on the matter at hand you'll only find shallow information directed at the general public. WikiBooks and OpenCourseWare are probably good examples of things which are helping alleviate with lack.
- phlux 16y ago
  I disagree. Eventually, Qwiki can provide a very very good lesson on varied topics in a very consumable manner. Ever see the movie 'Dune'? Where Paul is learning about Arakis on the video terminal? That is what Qwiki is doing - as a platform. Eventually - it will be able to take the deeper, more broad content and do the same thing. Providing an hour long info-mentary on a subject based on widely dispersed information across the web. Video from varied sources, pics, wikipedia articles etc... Dont lok at what Qwiki may be today -- think about what Qwiki will be in 5 years. Imagine if qwiki also incorporates WordLens technology as well - in 5 years - it will be able to translate and read to you PDFs in multiple languages.
iqster 16y ago
I saw these guys at TC disrupt last year. I really don't get it. I had a bigger "woah" moment when I saw Flipboard (and I've hardly used that after the initial playing-around phase). Is there great value here that I just can't see?
ebaysucks 16y ago
So Qwiki is search for the illiterate?
zwadia 16y ago
Qwiktard: A term in the future for clowns who grok a qwiki page in a desperate attempt to appear smart by spewing facts in the exact same sequence as a qwikvid they watched the same morning...

32 points by bjonathan 16y ago

clyfe 16y ago

Search with voice, pictures and interaction. VS "a drastically improved information experience provided via interactive video"

marcofloriano 16y ago

Alá boa garoto. Fico muito feliz em saber que o brazuca está se saindo bem depois daquela palhaçada que fizeram com ele no Facebook.

weston 16y ago

Good for Qwiki! That site blew my mind when I first went to it. I've showed it to a bunch of non-techies and they all have the same "woah!" reaction as well.

klenwell 16y ago
This is the first I've heard of the site so I just had a look. It is very polished. But is there anything to it beyond the "woah!" factor? I checked out the Goya page and it provided a fairly shallow flash montage about him. I see it won award from TechCrunch, which describes the site as disruptive. The interface, while slick, seems like it would be an interference to any practical usage. Is there more to it? Genuinely curious.
- weston 16y ago
  I think it's just a different way to absorb information that is already out there. An analogy could be: A student watching a video lesson in the classroom verses (or in addition to) reading a book. People are different in the ways they consume information and learn things.
ctide 16y ago
Yes, I had the same "whoa!" reaction, then never went back because it's a terribly ineffective way to acquire information.

aditya42 16y ago

I think Qwiki's main website should have been linked here, not the story on TC. I would vote up that one.

trotsky 16y ago

Like most reporters during the bubble, in my early startup-focused writing, I lavished too much attention on the investors. My then-editor David Churbuck would call me into his office, sit me down and tell me that investors are a good way to judge if a company is worthy of a story. He would tell me that investment dollars and investors help you define a story, but they are never the story. http://gigaom.com/2010/11/09/repeat-after-me-investors-are-never-the-story/ http://gigaom.com/2010/11/09/repeat-after-me-investors-are-n...

dstein 16y ago
To techcrunch's defense, their writers really don't have any idea what technology is. They actually think when a company receives money it is technology. Just like they think blogging a rumor or opinion is journalism. So, to techcrunch when they hear a juicy blog-worthy rumor about somebody receiving money, they truly believe it is technology news.
chopsueyar 16y ago
At least Techcrunch is able to identify his religion in the bio box at the bottom. </sarcasm> [edit] This guy's religion is not mentioned... http://eu.techcrunch.com/2011/01/19/former-nokia-guru-turns-his-hand-to-angel-investing/ http://eu.techcrunch.com/2011/01/19/former-nokia-guru-turns-...

grannyg00se 16y ago

I'm a bit underwhelmed. It looks like the basic formula for initial research on the web. A quick wikipedia first paragraph overview, followed by google images if relevant. Plus voice. But most of us read faster than voice communication so that's not an improvement for efficient search. Also, when reading we can skim or jump to the wikipedia index if desired to get right to the portion of interest. I suppose I'm missing the big picture, but combining wikipedia, google images, and voiceover doesn't blow me away. I do think that the presentation of the pictures is really nice. But again, probably less efficient than simply looking at google's image results. The qwiki experience provides a more entertaining experience at the expense of efficient and effective searching. Admittedly, I wouldn't be surprised if that is a tradeoff that many people are excited to embrace.

ZachPruckowski 16y ago
I suspect most people will find Qwiki cool for the novelty, but when it comes down to brass tacks and actually trying to learn something, I think Wikipedia's going to win out for everyone over the age of 13.
- phlux 16y ago
  But that is still valuable! Imagine a curated syllabus using Qwiki for K-5th grade topics that can be shown to children ALL OVER THE WORLD and effectively provide a basic level of education to every single kid on the planet. Pipe a data feed to some location, build a syllabus of information and let may kids get a ton of information. Sure, the depth that you would want them to have will require more affort - but there is nothing wrong with that. I just dont think that too many people are looking at technologies like Qwiki with much vision. They are still thinking in the past. Edit: Also - imagine if there was a "depth slider" on a qwiki - you could have it give a cursory overview of what algebra is, slide it to the right - and have it give more info and some examples - further still and you get actual lessons - further still and you get lectures from OpenCourseware etc..etc...
  - alnayyir 16y ago

noamsml 16y ago

Qwiki seems mostly to me like an attempt to "multimedia-ize" the information on the web. This seems the wrong way to go. What the web is lacking isn't breadth or engagement capacity. Hell, Wikipedia has engagement capacity. What the web lacks is information with the depth, quality and low entry barrier of textbooks. You can have depth and quality with stuff like Google Scholar, but the barrier of entry is absurd, and you can have breadth with a plethora of other sites, but without expertise on the matter at hand you'll only find shallow information directed at the general public. WikiBooks and OpenCourseWare are probably good examples of things which are helping alleviate with lack.

phlux 16y ago
I disagree. Eventually, Qwiki can provide a very very good lesson on varied topics in a very consumable manner. Ever see the movie 'Dune'? Where Paul is learning about Arakis on the video terminal? That is what Qwiki is doing - as a platform. Eventually - it will be able to take the deeper, more broad content and do the same thing. Providing an hour long info-mentary on a subject based on widely dispersed information across the web. Video from varied sources, pics, wikipedia articles etc... Dont lok at what Qwiki may be today -- think about what Qwiki will be in 5 years. Imagine if qwiki also incorporates WordLens technology as well - in 5 years - it will be able to translate and read to you PDFs in multiple languages.

iqster 16y ago

I saw these guys at TC disrupt last year. I really don't get it. I had a bigger "woah" moment when I saw Flipboard (and I've hardly used that after the initial playing-around phase). Is there great value here that I just can't see?

ebaysucks 16y ago

So Qwiki is search for the illiterate?

zwadia 16y ago

Qwiktard: A term in the future for clowns who grok a qwiki page in a desperate attempt to appear smart by spewing facts in the exact same sequence as a qwikvid they watched the same morning...