5 ms·

TV After YouTube

12 points by rfreytag 16y ago

xenophanes 16y ago
> that can’t be interrupted, paused, or changed and can’t be very easily recorded, either. Umm, it's very easy to record anything on your screen, e.g. with Snapz.
physcab 16y ago
Youtube though is almost always reliable. The problem with P2P TV is that if you are in the middle of watching your favorite show and your broadcaster's computer goes down because their cat is walking on the power cables, you blame the service for its bad quality, not the broadcaster.
- sosuke 16y ago
  Wouldn't a traditional delivery model for video work as a failover if the P2P traffic is not high enough and have that always acting as one of the P2P video seeders?
  - physcab 16y ago
    I'm not sure what their model is going to be. If they are going to host video, then yes, that will make it much more reliable. However then they will be liable for DMCA takedown requests and whatnot.
ugh 16y ago
I sure hope the future of consuming video content is more similar to YouTube than TV. There are still obvious economic problems, that’s why I only hope, not predict. The continuos nature of broadcasting always seemed like a big downside to me. Being able to watch the same content whenever you want – not whenever the broadcaster wants – seems like a obvious advantage to me. That just wasn’t feasible until a few years ago. Maybe it still isn’t feasible. But I sure hope we are coming closer. P2P TV might still be the future for all the stuff that really should be broadcast live (breaking news, ceremonies, sports) but I don’t think we will need more channels in the future. What we have now might do.
- rstocker99 16y ago
  Agreed re: live tv but for everything else "channels" where someone else bundles up content and controls when you watch something makes no sense. How about a model where you pick what you want to watch when you want to watch it and either pay for it (no ads) or don't pay for it (ads). At the end of the day the user will get a model that is enjoyable to use. Why? Because eventually someone will figure out the economics of an enjoyable model, users will flock to it and the other model (broadcast) will get killed. How long will this take? Your guess is as good as mine. The incumbents have a lot of power and absolutely no interest in change.
- Dove 16y ago
  I hope it is more like itunes than either. I would rather be the consumer than the commodity.
- jerf 16y ago
  The future of "online television" isn't YouTube or Veetle, it's Netflix On Demand and subscription Hulu. Quality, organized content, modest subscription prices, and while I'm not stupid enough to hope "no ads" I hope there's at least a "no ads" option for $$$.
  - ugh 16y ago
    Both of which is as of yet only available in the US :( I also don’t hope that the future is exactly like YouTube, just that there will be YouTube-like (i.e. on demand) services – like Hulu or Netflix.
Jun8 16y ago
I think he's spot on when he says "The aha! moment with Veetle is when you realize it is just like having a cable TV system with a million channels." However, what Cringely doesn't address is how these programs will be discovered. Discovery and search on TV is still in the Stone Age although there is abundant metadata. The situation is already bad with the current ~200 cable channels. Having thousands (or millions) of channels will necessitate a Google for TV.
- bobbyi 16y ago
  Apparently 200 channels has already necessitated a Google for TV http://www.google.com/tv/ http://www.google.com/tv/
warfangle 16y ago
He's saying YouTube isn't profitable because it's content is crap, at least partially. The counter-point, of course, is that in the age of targeted advertising.. isn't broadcast advertising (in terms of CPM) completely over-rated? I have a feeling that contextual video advertising is currently underrated, just as traditional broadcast advertising is overrated. In terms of dollar amounts spent.
spudlyo 16y ago
You can’t pause it, you can’t record it, you just have to watch it, like broadcast or cable TV pre-TiVO. And that makes it an ideal commercial medium and one very good for preserving intellectual property rights, unlike all those others. There's just one little problem, consumers don't want to go back to a pre-TiVO world. Emulating broadcast TV on the web isn't going to fly. It reminds me of 'push technology' which ultimately failed because consumers didn't want it.
- physcab 16y ago
  Well, it might work if you could deliver the content when the consumer wants. Broadcast TV works because I know every half hour something new is beginning or I can look up in the TV Menu when something is going to come on. P2P Broadcasting will always be chaotic in nature and thats the underlying problem. If they could somehow guarantee order and reliability, then they could pull it off.

12 points by rfreytag 16y ago

> that can’t be interrupted, paused, or changed and can’t be very easily recorded, either. Umm, it's very easy to record anything on your screen, e.g. with Snapz.

physcab 16y ago

Youtube though is almost always reliable. The problem with P2P TV is that if you are in the middle of watching your favorite show and your broadcaster's computer goes down because their cat is walking on the power cables, you blame the service for its bad quality, not the broadcaster.

sosuke 16y ago
Wouldn't a traditional delivery model for video work as a failover if the P2P traffic is not high enough and have that always acting as one of the P2P video seeders?
- physcab 16y ago
  I'm not sure what their model is going to be. If they are going to host video, then yes, that will make it much more reliable. However then they will be liable for DMCA takedown requests and whatnot.

ugh 16y ago

I sure hope the future of consuming video content is more similar to YouTube than TV. There are still obvious economic problems, that’s why I only hope, not predict. The continuos nature of broadcasting always seemed like a big downside to me. Being able to watch the same content whenever you want – not whenever the broadcaster wants – seems like a obvious advantage to me. That just wasn’t feasible until a few years ago. Maybe it still isn’t feasible. But I sure hope we are coming closer. P2P TV might still be the future for all the stuff that really should be broadcast live (breaking news, ceremonies, sports) but I don’t think we will need more channels in the future. What we have now might do.

rstocker99 16y ago
Agreed re: live tv but for everything else "channels" where someone else bundles up content and controls when you watch something makes no sense. How about a model where you pick what you want to watch when you want to watch it and either pay for it (no ads) or don't pay for it (ads). At the end of the day the user will get a model that is enjoyable to use. Why? Because eventually someone will figure out the economics of an enjoyable model, users will flock to it and the other model (broadcast) will get killed. How long will this take? Your guess is as good as mine. The incumbents have a lot of power and absolutely no interest in change.
Dove 16y ago
I hope it is more like itunes than either. I would rather be the consumer than the commodity.
jerf 16y ago
The future of "online television" isn't YouTube or Veetle, it's Netflix On Demand and subscription Hulu. Quality, organized content, modest subscription prices, and while I'm not stupid enough to hope "no ads" I hope there's at least a "no ads" option for $$$.
- ugh 16y ago
  Both of which is as of yet only available in the US :( I also don’t hope that the future is exactly like YouTube, just that there will be YouTube-like (i.e. on demand) services – like Hulu or Netflix.

Jun8 16y ago

I think he's spot on when he says "The aha! moment with Veetle is when you realize it is just like having a cable TV system with a million channels." However, what Cringely doesn't address is how these programs will be discovered. Discovery and search on TV is still in the Stone Age although there is abundant metadata. The situation is already bad with the current ~200 cable channels. Having thousands (or millions) of channels will necessitate a Google for TV.

bobbyi 16y ago
Apparently 200 channels has already necessitated a Google for TV http://www.google.com/tv/ http://www.google.com/tv/

warfangle 16y ago

He's saying YouTube isn't profitable because it's content is crap, at least partially. The counter-point, of course, is that in the age of targeted advertising.. isn't broadcast advertising (in terms of CPM) completely over-rated? I have a feeling that contextual video advertising is currently underrated, just as traditional broadcast advertising is overrated. In terms of dollar amounts spent.

spudlyo 16y ago

You can’t pause it, you can’t record it, you just have to watch it, like broadcast or cable TV pre-TiVO. And that makes it an ideal commercial medium and one very good for preserving intellectual property rights, unlike all those others. There's just one little problem, consumers don't want to go back to a pre-TiVO world. Emulating broadcast TV on the web isn't going to fly. It reminds me of 'push technology' which ultimately failed because consumers didn't want it.

physcab 16y ago
Well, it might work if you could deliver the content when the consumer wants. Broadcast TV works because I know every half hour something new is beginning or I can look up in the TV Menu when something is going to come on. P2P Broadcasting will always be chaotic in nature and thats the underlying problem. If they could somehow guarantee order and reliability, then they could pull it off.