One new twist to the proceedings: The White House, which normally plays along with the event even though the chief occupant gets ribbed, has gone all in. Immediately after showing this video–a parody trailer based on the “The King’s Speech”–at the event, they released it on YouTube (via Twitter, of course).

The bit isn’t LOL-worthy, IMHO. But it does contain jokes, and I think it’s noteworthy that they’re putting this out there for public consumption, at a time when much of the electorate seems particularly… susceptible to jokes. Even more so if they’re easily accessible via Google.

Also, as The Atlantic.com’s Gabe Snyder points out, the clip contains a Wu Tang Clan sample. Which is sure to upset someone (and please lots of us, too).

(Correction: The song — “Shimmy Shimmy Ya“–is actually from (now-deceased) Wu Tang Clan member Ol’ Dirty Bastard, notes MediaMemo reader “quietstorms“. Even better/worse!)

Meanwhile, you can see all 17 minutes of Obama’s presentation here (much sharper, I think–good Fox News dig), via the Washington Post:

As advertised, the free app is a mirror of HBO’s existing broadband service: It lets the channel’s subscribers stream a very deep catalog of HBO’s shows and movies, on demand, via both Wi-Fi and wireless networks.

It will also work on Apple’s iPhone and iPod Touch, as well as 20 phones running Google’s Android; it won’t work on tablets running Google’s newest Honeycomb OS, though. (Demo video from BTIG’s Rich Greenfield at the bottom of this post)

The two catches:

• The service is available to most cable customers, with the exception of Time Warner Cable and Cablevision subscribers. Time Warner Cable says it’s working on a deal; Cablevision won’t comment.
• It’s a very deep catalog–1,400 titles, including the complete run of great series like “The Sopranos” and “The Wire”–but it will still have gaps that could frustrate HBO’s most avid users. I’d like to try David Simon’s “Treme” again, for instance, but I can’t get last season’s episodes; just the new ones that started airing last week.

Some of you will bemoan the fact that you have to be a cable subscriber to get this–there’s no broadband-only option, a la Netflix and Hulu Plus. But that’s the point: Parent company Time Warner is completely wedded to the cable industry and wants to build as many incentives as it can to keep you there, too.

Still, this stuff is lightyears ahead of where the cable business was just a couple years ago, where paying subscribers had no way to get these shows except on their TVs, or by buying it again on DVD or iTunes.

And if you really are a dedicated cord-cutter, and a patient one, you may eventually get your way: I can imagine a scenario where HBO does offer this stuff directly to consumers, and if it happens within a few years, I won’t be completely shocked.

How big a toll? That one’s up for debate: Richard Rosenblatt’s company says the changes, which affect the traffic that Demand’s sites get from Google, aren’t significant enough for the company to change its guidance.

Most of Wall Street disagrees, and has been hammering Demand shares for the last couple of weeks. DMD is now trading around $16.70, down from a peak of more than $27 earlier this year.

In a note published today, Stifel Nicolaus analyst Jordan Rohan argues that investors are overreacting (Stifel helped take Demand public in January), and keeps his “buy” rating intact. A worst-case scenario, he says, is that the Google changes will clip Demand revenues by 10 percent and EBITDA by 20 percent–but Wall Street has pummeled Demand much more than that.

Rohan (and many others) are very interested to see what Demand says on its May 5 earnings call:

EHow and Demand Media had a great deal of momentum all the way through the first quarter and into the second quarter. But there is now this new variable with which to contend–it is hard to forecast traffic if there is volatility in index rank. How does that all balance out? To the extent that is possible to broaden the range of possible outcomes for the year, without abandoning the guidance altogether, we believe that would be incrementally positive, at least compared to current levels of fear. Maintaining guidance for full year revenue and EBITDA would be even sweeter, if possible. The “what can be done” part of this is key, in our view–own up to the weaknesses, identify the steps required to address those weaknesses, and correct course. Quickly.

Which sounds great. The problem for Demand (and many other publishers, including the New York Times, which said that its About.com had been beaten up by algorithm changes, too) is that it’s entirely possible that Google isn’t done adjusting its search formulas.

And what if it’s just beginning to overhaul search?

If so, every Google-dependent publisher is going to have a very hard time responding to each and every change the search giant makes. Which means that Demand Media’s fortunes will be in flux for some time. And it will be very hard to make Wall Street feel good about that.

I am surprised, though, at what happens when I click on #royalwedding, Twitter’s official hashtag for the event: I end up on the day’s Promoted Trend, purchased on behalf of something called “Magnum Ice Cream,” and which directs Twitter users to Magnum’s Facebook page.

Turns out this is indeed a real product, from Unilever, and I guess they’re getting their money’s worth, because you’re reading about it now. More important is that near the height of the ceremony Twitter was seeing 13,000 #royalwedding tweets per minute.

I do wonder, though, how the media companies Twitter has been encouraging to use #royalwedding today feel about helping the social network promote the “stylish and luxurious lifestyle inspired by the world’s most pleasurable ice cream.”

Related: In advance of the event, Twitter and ABC News told me they were working closely together on live coverage and plans, with hashtag polls and onscreen meters showing the velocity and total number of wedding tweets, etc.  But this turned out to be pretty restrained: In an hour of viewing this morning, I only saw a single reference to Twitter cross my screen (an ABC rep tells me there have been more).

Also worth noting: If you wanted to, you could watch the wedding itself on Twitter.com, via a livestream that NBC News provided. Pretty sure we’ll see more of this.

Could be!

But right now the industry is steaming merrily along. Today’s snapshot, via three earnings reports:

• Discovery Communications: Revenue up 9 percent, profits up 20 percent.
• Viacom: Revenue up 20 percent, profits up 47 percent.
• Time Warner Cable: Revenue up 5 percent, profits up 50 percent.

And those cheery results hold up when you dig into the reports, too: Discovery’s numbers are up because it’s getting more for both the ads and the subscriptions it sells–in the U.S., those numbers are up 6 percent and 9 percent, respectively. Viacom has the same story, plus “The Jersey Shore,” which remains astonishingly and distressingly popular.

(But don’t get me wrong: The boob tube has always been the boob tube. And, really, much boobier, in the old days of three (three!) networks. Here, via Bill Simmons, is a clip of Heather Locklear and Heather Thomas in a “Battle of the Network Stars” dunk tank. And at the bottom of this post, Telly Savalas and Gabe Kaplan and Farrah Fawcett. So great/bad.)

Okay, but those are programmers. What about Time Warner Cable, which merely owns pipe? Doing fine, too. The company did lose 66,000 video subscribers–about a half-percent of its 12.2 million base, so if you’re looking for evidence of cord-cutting, you can point to that.

But the cable industry’s consistent refrain is that any customers that are cutting the cord aren’t doing it to watch Web video on iTunes or Netflix or Hulu; they’re doing it because they don’t have any money for anything, period.

Here the numbers seem to bear out the argument: Time Warner’s video losses were outweighed by customers who added broadband and/or phone service to their packages, and the company ended up adding a total of 208,000 new subscription services for the quarter.

Next week we can check in with Comcast, which now has its hands in both the programming and pipe business. Those numbers should be instructive.

And now, because I can:

In the case of 140 Proof, it seems like they do okay.

About a year ago, Twitter put the kibosh on 140 Proof’s plans to sell ads side by side with Twitter users’ posts. But the start-up has modified its product and says that by the end of 2011, it will be profitable and on a pace to generate more than $10 million a year in sales.

That story has helped the company raise $2.5 million in a Series B round led by BlueRun ventures, which also participated in the company’s first $2 million round. Mark Kingdon, the former CEO of Web ad agency Organic, invested in both rounds, along with other angels.

140 Proof used to be one of several companies that sold or hoped to sell ads within Twitter users’ streams, a practice that Twitter stopped in 2010. It was one of several moves Twitter made in the last year that added restraints to what had been a live-and-let-live approach to third party companies.

140 Proof’s new strategy: It buys real estate on third-party social media software like Echofon and Tweetcaster, and rents that space out to advertisers. Here’s a sample:

The ads, to my eyes, look like Twitter messages, which I thought Twitter was trying to discourage. But they sit at the top of the stream, and 140 Proof says Twitter is okay with them.

I asked Twitter reps to confirm that the company approved. They declined to comment.

140 Proof also points out that it will sell ads against other social media platforms that aren’t Twitter, too. Here’s a blog post excerpt from sales chief Andy Scott, published this week, which boasts that “Twitter’s attempt to ‘spank the ecosystem’ is good for 140 Proof:”

The ecosystem continued to pivot away from a pure-play “same as Twitter.com” level of innovation that is about aggregation of social and real-time from multiple sources — Twitter is just one. Will Twitter own social/real-time updates on the scale of Google and Facebook walled gardens? Doesn’t look like it. Love Twitter, but these horses have left the barn and don’t want to come home. The more Twitter builds up the walls ex post facto — the more entire exploding segments (hello group texting!) bag its unpredictable closed system altogether. Classic platform trade-offs, god love an open world.

He’s good at it, too. Or at least, he’s good in this one, where he’s paired with a great interview subject.

Some good stuff here very early on, as Fey explains some basic rules of improv comedy, all of which seem completely foreign to the engineer interviewing her, and the ones in the audience.

And, if you like getting outraged about location tracking and don’t have a sense of humor, here’s some red meat for you. Check in around the 25 minute-mark, where Fey starts talking about her kid and mimes using an iPhone (later on she admits to using many Apple products).

Schmidt tells her she should be using Android. “We want you to use a more powerful phone,” he says. Then this:

Schmidt: “As your daughter gets older, you can keep track of your daughter with your phone. Trust me. You’re going to want our phones.”

Fey: “Ah. Subdermal chip, that you guys…

Schmidt: “That’s been proposed, but we’re not quite there yet.”

TheWrap’s Sharon Waxman first reported the news Monday evening. I’ve been able to confirm much of her story from people familiar with the plans.

Waxman’s report says the revamped store at Google’s video site “may start as early as this week or next;” I’m told it could be “weeks, but not months.” Big studios including Sony, Time Warner’s Warner Bros. and Comcast’s Universal are on board. So are indies like Lionsgate.

Notable holdouts: News Corp.’s Fox (News Corp. also owns this Web site) and Paramount, whose corporate parent Viacom is still suing Google over YouTube copyright claims.

YouTube started testing movie rentals internally in 2009, and has been renting a small handful to the public since 2010. Those movies have been offered as a streaming file, instead of the downloads that Apple’s iTunes rents, and I’m told the plan is for that to continue.

The difference is that you’ve probably only heard of a handful of the movies in YouTube’s existing store (I think “Made” is really under-appreciated). Post-expansion, you’ll get the same stuff, or much of the same stuff, that you can get from Apple, Amazon, and several other Web services.

So here’s the real question: Will you, or anyone else, use it?

Waxman quotes an unnamed executive who says they are “pretty excited,” but primarily because YouTube is embracing individual rentals, instead of a Netflix-style subscription plan.

A source I talked to from a participating studio, though, is less enthused: “A small VOD [video on demand] deal? Who cares? There are 40,000 other people who are selling VOD. This is a short-term, transactional deal.”

Another source familiar with the plans cautions that the initial expansion will only be the “first inning” of a longer game. Other features that Google could add down the road would be the ability to purchase movies, and store them in a cloud-based locker service.

Google is unlikely to get that ability until it makes several moves to mollify the big studios, primarily around copyright issues: They want the search giant to make it harder to find pirated movies, and they don’t want Google placing its ads on pirate sites, etc.

Google has been making some moves along those lines, but apparently not enough of them. (The flip side of this argument: Many studios are very interested cloud-based lockers, because they think that system, which allows people who own an individual movie to watch it on different machines, will support their eroding DVD sales. That may be more wishful thinking than anything else, but that’s for a different story.)

But the problem for both Google and the studios is that so far digital consumers seem largely uninterested in renting or buying individual movies.

Given the choice, consumers have overwhelmingly gone for Netflix, which now boasts 23.6 million subscribers. Research firm NPD estimates the company has 61 percent of the digital movie market.

The video rental service, which made a splash when it bought the first-run rights to “House of Cards,” an HBO-style series that will run next year, says it wants to do more.

“Ideally, we’ll license two or three similar, but smaller, deals so we can gain confidence that whatever results we achieve are repeatable,” CEO Reed Hastings writes in his quarterly shareholders‘ letter today.

Hastings’ letters are pretty entertaining reads, especially by the standards of most quarterly earnings reports. So read it for yourself if you have time. If you don’t, some other highlights:

• International: Hastings says Netflix “slightly over-forecast” growth in Canada, its first expansion market, but says they’re still planning on expanding into another market this year. The company has increased the operating losses it expects the move to generate, though–it now says it will lose up to $75 million in the second half of the year, up from a previous estimate of $50 million.
• Bandwidth and the cable guys: Last quarter, Netflix complained loudly about the way some bandwidth providers charge the company; this time around it is much quieter. With the exception of Rogers in Canada: Netflix says its bandwidth caps and penalties are “outrageous.”
• Earnings:  Revenue of $719 million and earnings of $1.11 per share, vs. Wall Street’s targets of $704 million and $1.06.
• Subscribers: 23.6 million globally, which is about what Wall Street was looking for.
• Guidance: The company’s Q2 revenue is in line with Wall Street’s expectations, but subscriber and earnings numbers were a little lower. The stock is down 5 percent in after-market trading.

Here’s a cheat sheet from Citigroup’s Mark Mahaney:

Netflix hosts its conference call at 6 ET; I’ll circle back then.

And, oddly enough, if you work for a media company that caters to Americans, you might care more about Prince William and Kate Middleton than your counterparts in the U.K.

At least that’s the conclusion we can draw from this surprising Nielsen chart, which tracks online media mentions of Friday’s event.

Note that the chart isn’t measuring raw tonnage of coverage, but share of coverage. And that green line at the top is the U.S. Surprising, right?

Just to be clear, I wanted to make sure I understood what Nielsen was measuring here. Here’s their response: “’traditional media’ includes news sites that are online only (Huffington Post, for example) or web counterparts for print or broadcast outlets (including BBC.co.uk, CNN.com, WSJ.com, CBSNews.com, FT.com, ESPN.com), industry publications (AdAge.com, Adweek.com, academic journals, etc.) and wire services (Reuters, AP). The corpus of data is 45,000 publications/sites around the world; this study reviewed just over 18,000 in the U.S., approximately 6,800 in the U.K. and roughly 1,200 in Australia.”

The software company is rolling out Rinse, a $39 program that promises to “seamlessly organize and repair your iTunes music library”.

The idea is that most iTunes users’ collections are full of music they didn’t buy from Apple’s digital store, and are very often mislabeled, or not labeled at all. Real says Rinse can fix that, with software that can also “find the matching artwork, remove duplicates and clean things up.”

I’m not clear how this differs dramatically from features iTunes already offers, especially since both iTunes and Rinse rely on the CDDB database owned by Sony’s Gracenote to identify songs.

But I took Rinse for a spin yesterday and found that it could find some songs in my collection that had previously been mislabeled–while it was stumped by some others.

Rinse looks like a product aimed a subset of a subset: iTunes power users who care about the way their collection looks and works–and who have the time to do something about it.

That said, it’s worth noting that if Apple starts moving iTunes to the cloud, identifying exactly what’s on your hard drive may become much more important to you and to Apple.

That will be particularly true if Apple uses a “scan-and-match” technology, which won’t actually make copies of your files, but simply provide a single master copy that many song owners can access remotely.

In any event, Rinse is a good example of Real’s overall strategy shift. As Geekwire, which tracked down Rinse over the weekend, notes: “The program is part of the Seattle technology company’s bid to reinvent itself by providing technologies for managing and distributing digital media–shifting away from being an actual content provider.”

The graphic and the data come from Google, via a research note the search giant published this month. Analyst Rich Greenfield reprinted the report, and if you’ve got time (today could be a very slow work day for many of you), you should register for a free account from Greenfield’s BTIG Research shop so you can check out the whole thing.

A couple notes:

• Google says query volume for “Netflix” peaked in February 2011, but grew more than 90 percent in both 2010 and 2009.
• That growth isn’t simply a result of Netflix adding more subscribers–it’s the result of Netflix subscribers using the Web more frequently. Google says queries per subscriber grew more than 40 percent last year, presumably as people looked to see what they could stream.
• DVD sales finally peaked in 2007, but Google queries kept climbing through 2008. Google’s explanation for this is confusing: “The shift in online behavior driven by the increased ability to buy and research DVDs via the Internet compensated for the decreased desire to own physical DVDs. The result was strong growth in search activity for terms including ‘DVDs,’ ‘new movies on DVD,’ ‘new DVD releases,’ among related other generic DVD terms.”
• Google’s chart also shows “free movie terms” declining after 2009. Does that mean piracy is declining, too? That seems hard to imagine. Here’s Greenfield’s thought: ”We wonder if the key change is that piracy is increasingly being driven by linking sites versus consumers simply searching for torrent links (meaning consumers know to start at a particular site to search for pirated movies versus searching Google to get to the linking page itself). In addition, we suspect social media is increasingly driving piracy as consumers are simply posting links to storage locker locations to stream/download files illegally, mitigating the need to search Google itself.”

Netflix, by the way, reports Q1 earnings on Monday.

Hence this clip for the new Thor movie (via Mashable):

Which is a parody/homage of/to this Volkswagen Super Bowl ad from earlier this year:

The Volkswagen clip has racked up a staggering 36 million views (that’s the power of Star Wars + the Super Bowl, apparently), so no reason not to draft in its wake.

My hunch is that the Thor spot will be more fun than the movie, but who knows? The Rotten Tomatoes gang is enthusiastic about it. And, sort of weirdly, it turns out that this is a Kenneth Brannagh movie, a fact that may be enough to lure a couple of out-of-demo oldies like myself to the theater.

Which may sound a lot like what Amazon rolled out last month.

From the music industry’s perspective, however, there’s a big difference: Amazon started its service without getting approval from the big music labels. But Apple is actively seeking licenses for its service, and will pay the labels for the privilege.

And sources tell me that Apple has already procured deals from at least two of the big four labels (Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, Sony and EMI) within the last two months. One source tells me Apple content boss Eddy Cue will be in New York tomorrow to try to finalize remaining deals.

“They’ve been very aggressive and thoughtful about it,” says an industry executive. “It feels like they want to go pretty soon.”

Reuters reported earlier today that Apple has “completed work on an online music storage service,” but said the company had not obtained licenses from any labels so far. I’ve asked all four labels for comment; an Apple rep declined to comment.

The industry executives I’ve talked to haven’t seen Apple’s service themselves, but say they’re aware of the broad strokes. The idea is that Apple will let users store songs they’ve purchased from its iTunes store, as well as others songs stored on their hard drives, and listen to them on multiple devices.

Amazon’s service does the same thing, but label executives have argued that a license would allow Apple (or Google, if it moves forward on similar, but stalled, plans) to create a more “robust service” with better user interfaces, sound quality, and other features.

I’ve never understood how a license would affect things like product design, but there’s at least one practical benefit from Apple’s perspective: The deals it is signing will allow it to store a single master copy of a song on its servers, and share that with multiple users.

Amazon’s service, by comparison, works much more like an external hard drive, where users are required to upload a copy of every song they’ll want to get via remote access.

Amazon offers its user a limited amount of storage for free. I don’t know if Apple intends to charge its users for the service, or will absorb the storage and licensing costs on its own.

Is that good? Bad? Make your own guess. Times PR boss Bob Christie, says that number doesn’t include free starter subscriptions offered to some readers, via Lincoln. But he says it does include launch promotions which offered a four-week trial for $0.99.

If all of those subs stick around for a year, that’s at least another $19.5 million in revenue for the paper. But that’s a big “if.”

Here’s the Times’ take: “So soon after the launch, the Company does not yet have visibility into conversion and retention rates for these paying customers after the initial promotional period, although early indicators are encouraging.”

The rest of the paper’s numbers are OKish, for a big print publication: Revenues are down 3.6 percent, with ad revenue down 4.4 percent and circulation dollars down 3.7 percent.

The Times’ digital story is a bit of a mixed bag. The publisher’s media group saw digital ad revenue increase 14.9 percent, but revenues at About.com, which have been a big component of its Web business for years, dropped 10.2 percent, and operating profit at About dropped 13.9 percent.

The Times lays some of the blame at Google’s feet: “Design changes in cost-per-click advertisements served by Google had a negative effect on click-through rates in the quarter, and the Company expects that to be the case through the second quarter of 2011. The About Group also experienced a moderately negative impact on page views from the algorithm changes Google implemented in the quarter.”

AT&T, which had previously had an exclusive on the iPhone in the U.S., reported yesterday that it activated 3.6 million iPhones during Q1. But those numbers aren’t, um, apples to apples: Verizon didn’t start selling the phone until February, which means its total only spans two months of availability.

Apple says it sold 18.65 million iPhones worldwide during the quarter. Verizon also says it activated 500,000 4G devices during Q1, including 260,000 HTC Thunderbolts in a two-week span.

But that’s the downside for iTunes: It gets ignored by analysts who are much more interested in iPhone and iPad sales numbers–which are even more impressive. (iPhone sales and revenue are both up more than 100 percent!)

Still, since Apple spelled it out, let’s repeat it here: Its digital storefront did more than $1.4 billion in sales in the last quarter. That’s a new record for the company, up from $1.1 billion a year ago.

Apple doesn’t break out the mix of those sales, but my hunch is that most of the growth has been fueled by the app store, since digital music has been flat, at least in the U.S., for a while. And Apple’s TV and book sales are relatively tiny.

Regardless of how the mix breaks down, Apple can use the numbers as yet more evidence–not that it really needs any–that people are more than willing to spend money on its digital goods.

Which is nice to have as it continues to go back and forth with media companies over its subscription plans, which kick in this summer.

And for what it’s worth, a single analyst did try to get Apple COO Tim Cook to talk about iTunes during this afternoon’s earnings call, by asking him about plans for the cloud (and, by extension, it’s plans for that big data center, and streaming video and music and everything else). No dice.

Apple sold 4.7 million iPads in the first 3 months of this year — enough to generate $2.8 billion in revenue. But that number is more than a million units short of what Wall Street’s consensus of 6.2 million (via Piper Jaffray).

What happened?

Apple chief financial officer Peter Oppenheimer won’t spell it out in his remarks, but is basically arguing that Apple couldn’t make enough. In his prepared remarks, he said the company is “thrilled with the momentum for iPad,” and is seeing “very robust demand for iPad.”

“Customer enthusiasm has been tremendous for ipad 2, and we’re working as hard as we can to get into their hands as fast as possible,” he added. “We sold every iPad 2 that we could make.”

The iPad numbers led some people to immediately conclude that the Japanese earthquake affected Apple’s supply chain, but COO Tim Cook says that’s not the case.

Cook said Apple “did not have any supply or cost impact” from the disaster in the last quarter, and doesn’t anticipate any for the current quarter.

Still, Cook said, Apple can’t rule out another iPad supply issue this time around. “I am confident we’re going to produce a very large number for the quarter,” he said. “Whether that will be enough to meet demand, I don’t know.”

Cook went into a bit more detail about the iPad shortage problem, and I’ll add that in when I can get to my notes. But here’s his most concise description: It’s the “mother of all backlogs”.

Yesterday, from the back of the official All Things Digital minivan, BoomTown donned the official ATD Ray-Ban Aviators to talk on WSJ.com’s “Digits” online news show about the $300 million acquisition of Kosmix by Wal-Mart announced earlier this week.

The deal for the Silicon Valley site, which has built a social media platform that organizes content by topic, will be interesting to watch, since the retail giant has tried a number of digital moves in years past that seem to have had negligible impact.

Such as its Vudu movie service, which Wal-Mart bought last year for $100 million, as MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka also noted on the program.

(By the way, it goes without saying, I do not pontificate and drive–at least not on a Skype video connection.)

Here’s the video:

“I know it sounds crazy, but our new company, http://altly.com, is building an alternative to Facebook. More details soon :-)”

– Former Veoh CEO, and, more recently, former MySpace Music CTO Dmitry Shapiro, setting some not-very modest goals for himself via Twitter.

Unlike News.me, which will charge $0.99 a week, Trove is free. And while News.me is designed to be consumed on the iPad, Trove is starting out as a Web-based service that also works on Google’s Android and Research In Motion’s BlackBerry. WaPo says iPhone and iPad editions are coming.

The biggest difference: News.me is based entirely on shared Twitter links, but Trove is part personalized search engine–it says it sorts through more than 10,000 sources on the Web–and part traditional publisher, with a four-person team highlighting interesting stories.

Trove also uses Facebook data to set up initial “channels” for users based on their behavior on the social network.

I haven’t played with Trove on the go yet, and my gut is that it’s going to work best in mobile settings, where limited screen real estate makes news curation services more useful. On the Web, though, it seems like a modest evolution from the personalized home pages many of you have already used–interesting, but not crucial.

But take it for a spin yourself, and let me know what you think in comments below. Meanwhile, if you like those cartoons from the Taiwanese Next Media Animation shop, here’s a treat for you.