The Great Internet Video Lie
blogmaverick.com
blogmaverick.com
They do in some cases want their video "now" (not in all cases), but they'd be just as happy if the "stream" stuck around in some form for a while rather than evaporating immediately.
Of course, I read the article, and at first it seems I was wrong. But... if you dig deeper, there's still an interesting aspect to my initial reaction. Delivering live streams to 10,000 users? Yeah, you're in for a world of hurt. But one hour of 1mbps video as a simple file is ~450 megabytes of data, and delivering that to 10,000 people an hour average is more feasible; there's more tricks you can play if you're just distributing a file and not a stream, not the least of which is torrenting. Some people might not get it in an hour, but it's a lesser problem to come close to an hour download time than to get everything necessary for the stream to work.
If you're not trying to stream, the problem is significantly reduced back to something manageable.
Whether this actually helps, I don't know exactly. But I certainly don't think it's as dire.
Interestingly, I observe that the big video sites seem to not stream anymore, they all let loading run ahead if possible. Maybe this is the reason?
1. You just want to have a preview 2. You have a fast connection and you don't want to wait for the download / you just want to watch it once 3. You just want to click and watch
I saw this one p2p streaming client on TC called rayv
Use a modified version of bittorrent and delay the stream for one or two minutes. That should be enough to distribute the torrent chunks to all viewers. You could make it as an add-on to media players or as a stand-alone product depending on your income model.
Ta-da: problem solved :-)
Disclaimer: I don't know enough about torrents or streaming technology to assess whether this would actually work, but I don't see any conceptual barriers. Feel free to correct me...
But in any case, all of the fiction shows on television, and even news commentary (e.g. the Daily Show), work fine on the download model. And that is exactly what's happening, $1.99 from iTunes or free with commercials from the network's web site or Hulu the next day, in HD (don't think it's 1080p, but looks pretty good on my monitor).
So, again, even if Cuban is right about everything he says, it demonstrates a much diminished role for cable TV going forwarded, limited mostly to live events.
Huh?
http://widgets.alexa.com/traffic/graph/?r=1m&y=r&z=1...
^ (youtube vs. piratebay vs. isohunt) have no idea how to save links in alexa, so that will probably disappear.
But my point isn't that people aren't flocking to "streaming" sites. It's that if you gave them the choice between a forced stream, like the way Netflix streams movies, or a file that downloaded as quickly as possible, persisted, and could be viewed as it came in if your connection is good enough, they'll take the second one every time. The only way "streaming" wins is when it has something that isn't available that second way. (Or people don't realize it's available, or, gasp, don't actually want to break the law to get it.)
I call FUD. Mark's argument is that point to multi-point streaming of live video events isn't feasible technologically because of bandwidth limitations. His argument is a straw man.
There are problems with point to multipoint video streaming. That doesn't kill internet video. Fewer and fewer people are watching live events as they happen. Many people want the content, but they want to watch it asynchronously, not live. People are increasingly recording the shows that they want to watch on DVR and then watching them whenever they want. Internet video is all about watching content whenever you want to, not about watching the content live. That's where Mark is wrong.
Who here watched the inauguration live? I watched it on Hulu 1 hour after it happened. Much more convenient than trying to remember to hit the DVR record button.
The boon that YouTube and internet video has been for content creators is that they can get any distribution at all. Before YouTube and video streaming, if you had video content and you wanted to distribute it, you could either try to get a TV station to pick it up, sell it to a movie studio, or market it directly yourself via direct sales.
It's actually _possible_ now for a content creator to distribute their video on YouTube and get it seen by one million people. That's the promise of internet video, not that one million people are going to watch your content all at once.
And, it's that sort of distribution is making a lot more cottage video industries possible like Peepcode: http://peepcode.com/ Where a couple of guys can make a living selling educational video streamcasts. That would never have happened 5 years ago.
In the comments he says that on-demand streaming with a lot of simultaneous viewers is just as difficult as live.
Perhaps he's aiming his blog post at TV executives. If they believe that they are going to be able to stream the Superbowl instead of having it on broadcast TV, then yes, internet streaming is a lie. But there are only a couple of hundred content producers that would be true for. Think producers and distributors of hit television shows or event broadcasters.
But, for the vast millions of content video content producers around the world that now have an audience and distribution, internet streaming is a dream, not a lie.
From the consumer perspective, however -- the internet is the clear winner, if you must choose one. There are millions of streams available at any one time. That's the beauty of it. That's why Internet video will win in the long run or at least be a viable option for the individual over television. If you are willing to sacrifice mainstream content, ditch the TV and go all Internet. I haven't had a TV in over 6 years.
But Mr. Cuban is right, TV will be around for a long time. It will remain the winner for mainstream content, but the Internet isn't about mainstream content it's about access to content that isn't popular enough to warrant distributing to the main streams via traditional wireless routes.
Anyone here also TV free? How many years?
However what the Internet does do is level the playing field (at least compared to traditional media distribution methods). This means that cranky old white men clutching yesteryear's business models will have their lunch eaten sooner or later.
Even though scalability is an issue, it hasn't been solved because the demand hasn't been high enough yet. How many events have to scale that big? In this case, the long tail of content (meaning anything that needs to scale to more than a million simultaneous views) is the vast majority of content. Hulu doesn't have any trouble streaming the most popular television shows. How many Superbowls and Obama inaugurations actually happen?
Furthermore, the solution for massive scalability already exists. It's called BitTorrent, and Cuban was remiss in not mentioning it. BitTorrent makes scalability a function of total Internet bandwidth. It also transfers the hardware costs to the users (who don't see it as a cost). The bandwidth is still more expensive than television broadcast, but I imagine reaching everyone in the US via television is not exactly cheap either.
Never owned one.
Sadly the time savings afforded by not having a TV are often eaten up by the Internet nowdays, but at least it requires slightly more activity on my part.
Certainly you can get an unlimited number of broadband users. My upload rate is more than enough to watch a good quality stream and upload at least as much as I download.
Report says http://news.sohu.com/20070320/n248849308.shtml in 2007 the peak viewer of QQLive reaches to 1650k during the Chinese New Year Spring Festival. I guess this year they may reach a much higher number.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/25/technology/25drill.html?_r...
Then again, Nielsen shows that the average American household watches significantly more TV than uses the internet?
http://www.nielsen.com/media/2008/pr_081124.html
I'd say that while this might be currently true - given the shift in eyeballs from the TV to the Computer Screen amongst the younger people, then costs for content producers should invariably become lower as time marches on - so cuban's point is a bit of a moot point.