5 ms·

Interesting graph, but is 'video' really a different class of traffic to web? Every other type shown in the graph is literally a different internet protocol (em

by user24 16y ago

Interesting graph, but is 'video' really a different class of traffic to web? Every other type shown in the graph is literally a different internet protocol (email, telnet, web, etc). Separating 'video' from 'web' seems a little unwarranted. It's true that you could make a distinction - the web is hyperlinked multimedia and video isn't very web-like according to that definition. But I don't think you can claim from that graph that 'the web is dead'. The weaker claim that 'traditional hypermedia is giving way to video' would be better supported, but less interesting. tldr - false dichotomy

rmc 16y ago
The Web is moving to include video. Just look at the <video> tag in HTML5.
- scott_s 16y ago
  The parent's point was that only a myopic definition of the web does not already include video.
  - BerislavLopac 16y ago
    But I agree with the article that video is not an integral part of the Web -- up until HTML5 the browsers even didn't have the ability to play video natively, relying on plugins like Flash. If you watch YouTube videos on your iPhone, you don't even have a browser to play the video at all. It's true that it's still transferred using the HTTP -- the Web protocol -- but that's the whole point of the article: a new Web, which uses much the same protocols but don't rely on the browser for consumption. I've previously given a thought to the whole concept at http://berislav.lopac.net/post/615858128/the-future-of-web-browser http://berislav.lopac.net/post/615858128/the-future-of-web-b...
    - Sizlak 16y ago
      But 9 times out of 10, I'm viewing video in a web browser. Splitting it out only makes sense if they track which videos are being viewed in a web page and which ones are viewed in apps, and they aren't doing that, so the graph is meaningless.
      - BerislavLopac 16y ago
        Should Gmail be counted as Web or email? It's all about usage, not about the technology. Think out of the box.
    - amackera 16y ago
      Once upon a time browsers couldn't render images either.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]

by user24 16y ago

rmc 16y ago

The Web is moving to include video. Just look at the <video> tag in HTML5.

scott_s 16y ago
The parent's point was that only a myopic definition of the web does not already include video.
- BerislavLopac 16y ago
  But I agree with the article that video is not an integral part of the Web -- up until HTML5 the browsers even didn't have the ability to play video natively, relying on plugins like Flash. If you watch YouTube videos on your iPhone, you don't even have a browser to play the video at all. It's true that it's still transferred using the HTTP -- the Web protocol -- but that's the whole point of the article: a new Web, which uses much the same protocols but don't rely on the browser for consumption. I've previously given a thought to the whole concept at http://berislav.lopac.net/post/615858128/the-future-of-web-browser http://berislav.lopac.net/post/615858128/the-future-of-web-b...
  - Sizlak 16y ago
    But 9 times out of 10, I'm viewing video in a web browser. Splitting it out only makes sense if they track which videos are being viewed in a web page and which ones are viewed in apps, and they aren't doing that, so the graph is meaningless.
    - BerislavLopac 16y ago
      Should Gmail be counted as Web or email? It's all about usage, not about the technology. Think out of the box.
  - amackera 16y ago
    Once upon a time browsers couldn't render images either.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]