jesbickhart

People want aggregation, it will come back in some form. The new streaming landscape is much too fragmented...kind of like the Airline industry.

Google does too. I'm talking about discovery - most people don't know what they want to watch when they sit down in front of the TV.

I've found myself scrolling for 20-30min sometimes just looking through Netflix, then Prime, then Hulu, then HBO... just to end up watching Friends again..

justwatch and reelgood do this well but need more applications.

I'm fascinated by this problem: How would consumers navigate a third-party aggregation application? It seems to me there needs to be a free "Kayak"-like service for film & tv discovery. Show me only what I can watch for free (because I already subscribe to my favorite channels). Develop the application on every OS that I watch content (TV, Mobile and Web).

Would consumers like navigating a UI similar to Pinterest (boards) or Spotify (playlists) on your TV? It works well for images and music...

If anyone wants to read the pilot: http://www.fileswap.com/dl/wQwDwVML9f/

Honestly wasn't a fan at all. Felt very contrived and inorganic. Would have been a bigger fan of a more serious take on the subject matter.

You make it sound like this is the only opportunity for disruption yet fail to bring a point to the table to back up this claim. Piracy is a violation of copyrighted content plain and simple. It is illegal. We will find another way.

This is exactly what I am talking about haha. Nabster was the precursor to iTunes. iTunes disrupted everything legally.

Actually they have every intention of doing just that. Look at the decline in movie ticket sales year by year over the last 4. Emerging distribution platforms like Netflix and Hulu get lots of attention from production companies because they aren't afraid to shake it up and provide an alternative to the studio giants that don't develop small movies anymore.

The cost of making a film is getting lower as are P&A expenses required to release them. This disruption is imminent but we shouldn't go around studios -- we need to work with them to develop an alternative to theatrical releases.

All for disrupting Hollywood, but pirating (or file-sharing however you want to phrase it) is NOT how we are going to accomplish this.

The ripest piece of disruption is distribution platforms and working with studios to find a safe way to release a picture not going around them illegally.

Fantastic idea in our constant dialogue about the convergence of tech and entertainment in LA. Will be very interesting to follow as this develops through the semesters or however they are organizing the accelerator.

We talk exhaustively about what this convergence looks like - what the future of filmed entertainment and consumption infused with the cutting edge of tech will look like. Perhaps we need look no further than what Big Spaceship and Ken Burns have done with their new iPad app for answers.

There is no greater leader in the documentary space than Ken Burns. His 30+ years in the industry have created some of the most educational and thought-provoking material about our nation’s history.

I’ve been playing with the new app released yesterday for iPad for the past few hours and can’t rave enough about the UI/UX experience. They have made looking into our nations past exciting and perhaps even more importantly, relevant again, by reminding us as Samuel Clemens said so elegantly, “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme”.

Bravo to the Big Spaceship team and others who worked on it. You have hooked me!

I think it is a law in the US as well? Pretty hard to corner the market though with a bike light...

Because of the "fish-eye" effect of the lens, it is hard to use stabilization plugins for editing purposes. In After Effects CS6 by Adobe they have a plugin called "Warp Stabilizer" that is pretty good but again it's not perfect.

I would call "windsurfing" and "skiing" extreme cases of POV usage. The normal application of POV cams could easily be filled by a more practical mobile device such as a cell phone.

I bring up Redbull because there you have a company that was able to profit more-so from it's brand than their product. Their brand created more value in the company than the product they were making.

GoPro has a similar mission as Redbull I think, therefore they would be wise to follow the lead Redbull has already proven successful.

So we agree that there is opportunity for some growth in the POV camera marketplace but disagree in how much there really is.

You mention "every urban biker in the western world" but unless GoPro figures out someway to make it necessary for every biker in the western world to have a camera attached to their bike how on earth is this a realistic goal to shoot for? That is like saying Redbull is shooting to get their product into the hands of every athlete...it's a silly assumption.

It is clearly a nitch in the market place but is it large enough to sustain and grow in a publicly traded company? That is the question.

Mobile phones are only going to start taking bigger bites out of the market. And sure we may not mount our phones on submarines or airplane wings like we could a GoPro but apart from the extreme cases, our phones will be much more convenient than another piece of hardware right?

Although this is sarcastic you do bring up a good point. GoPro is a maker of a single product - the GoPro POV camera - just as RedBull is the maker of a single product - the wing-inducing energy drink. How much longer will GoPro be able to survive in the increasing competitive market of solely POV cameras, especially with opportunities for mobile to eat up a share of the market.

By filing for an IPO Nick Woodman must believe that the GoPro brand is worth as much as the product they make itself. That is the only justification I can think of for filing. How many iterations of the camera can they make and for how much longer is this sustainable without some sort of a pivot?

...and spending a few million on an advertising campaign is probably a waste to you too then huh..

Congrats and best of luck, used your perks to get into LA Fitness. Whippin this butt back into shape! Thanks guys.

I don't think anyone will ever refer to this app as simply "Paper"..that already exists with 53's app. My guess is that people will refer to it as "Facebook Paper" as they have with "Facebook Messenger".

Facebook will always need a home page if for no other reason than to manage who you friend and what you are reading. They are interested in creating more stand alone apps ala Messenger. Paper is just another stand alone facebook app - and looks to be a very good one to me.

I disagree. A startup's goal is to share their mission and product in a way that is shareable. A pitch video that is pure product features is nothing more than boring advertising.

Speaking as a filmmaker and entrepreneur here. Oculus is NOT the future of anything. It isn't going to replace movies or gaming or take the place of any already existing models of entertainment that we have in place. The opportunity always exists for new media and entertainment consumption (look no further than short form video content ala youtube...). We all said it wasn't going to go anywhere. We all said it would replace the way we watch movies.

Oculus is going to exist on it's own accord. A new breed of content producers is going to come in and capitalize on this new media and entertainment platform just like people always have. Movie theaters may go away, we may turn to instant film distribution via online platforms, but we will never simply REPLACE filmmaking by this new medium. They both will exist in their own accord. "360degree choose-your-own-adventure" storytelling will emerge as it's own thing - as will "360degree sporting and live spectacle events".