4 ms·

Mark forgot to mention a "Full disclosure" he founded HDnet, which is a HD television network. I call FUD. Mark's argument is that point to multi-point stream

Mark forgot to mention a "Full disclosure" he founded HDnet, which is a HD television network. 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/ http://peepcode.com/ Where a couple of guys can make a living selling educational video streamcasts. That would never have happened 5 years ago.

wmf 18y ago
To be fair, Cuban was also involved in broadcast.com and Red Swoosh, so he has experience with Internet video and traditional TV. In the comments he says that on-demand streaming with a lot of simultaneous viewers is just as difficult as live.
- iamelgringo 18y ago
  Yes, on demand streaming is difficult, but it's not "the lie of internet video". 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.

wmf 18y ago

To be fair, Cuban was also involved in broadcast.com and Red Swoosh, so he has experience with Internet video and traditional TV. In the comments he says that on-demand streaming with a lot of simultaneous viewers is just as difficult as live.

iamelgringo 18y ago
Yes, on demand streaming is difficult, but it's not "the lie of internet video". 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.