4 ms·

Im not sure that Netflix is the preferred option. You say >(Netflix et al) are far more popular and commercially successful for watching online video File sha

Im not sure that Netflix is the preferred option. You say >(Netflix et al) are far more popular and commercially successful for watching online video File sharing versions are not aimed at being commercially successful so i think that is an irrelevant comparison. Also you I expect are from the USA, netflix/hulu etc arenot available everywhere so they are certainly not more popular than the alternatives in countries where they are not avaiable. Popcorn Time was a free, decentralized Netflix alternative and it was hugely popular, only that the developers pulled the plug on it did it not become the defacto method of watching movies for free online. Anyway not sure how these compare to bitcoin but I dont think your analogy holds up even when not compared to bitcoin.

dublinben 12y ago
It's worth mentioning that PopcornTime[0] is still available at a new domain, and has been forked by at least one group of developers. [0]http://popcorntime.io/ http://popcorntime.io/
- celticninja 12y ago
  thaat is worth mentioning. thank you
- Fuxy 12y ago
  All the forking is not helping it gain popularity. When there are so many similar versions which one do you choose. Also you probably don't want it to be popular anyway unless you don't mind the authorities knocking on your door.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
timdaub 12y ago
Good point. I think the market will always decide which media consumption method it wants to use depending on how frictionless the experience is. In the case of Bittorrent, as a mainstream consumer you'd have to know what program to download, where to find a torrent file yada, yada yada, while on Netflix you can just enter your credit card information and watch as many movies as you like. I think recently, Facebook also realized this, which is why they are currently aiming towards bringing a great search engine to their customers. Once that is in place sufficiently, homepages for small businesses will become obsolete, as people rather search for a company/product on Facebook than on the internet as it is a much easier to do. This same principle again will probably apply to Bitcoin and digital payments in general. Right now, Apple is doing a great job reducing friction in payments, at least for mainstream consumers.
- cubano 12y ago
  > Once that is in place sufficiently, homepages for small businesses will become obsolete, as people rather search for a company/product on Facebook than on the internet as it is a much easier to do. While this may or may not be true, am I the only one who is slightly frightened by the ramifications of this? Facebook is fine, for what it is, but the idea that it could soon become a proxy for the WWW isn't my idea of optimum.
  - celticninja 12y ago
    It will become a proxy only for those people who allow it to. Which in general will be the older and less technically able generation who barely use the Internet other than to Facebook anyway. It certainly isn't going to replace Google and as usual with social media sites the kids will be looking to get away from the sites their parents use.
sp332 12y ago
Commercial success depends on a solid technical infrastructure. Netflix evaluated Bittorrent vs centralized distribution and went centralized. YouTube did the same. This indicates that BT is not technically better than a centralized model. But I think the only reason Netflix doesn't use BT is that the content owners are super-skittish about people having a copy of the data on their computers instead of streaming it and throwing it away. So even if BT is a better technical solution, it's politically unworkable.
- celticninja 12y ago
  I would disagree with this point >This indicates that BT is not technically better than a centralized model. It indicates that BT didn't provide something that Netflix et al did require. I imagine that is something like maintaining control of all digital copies of a work as you went on to suggest. This is not a technical limitation but rather a business need. So BT may be technically better (I imagine in terms of resources required to provide content it is superior) however it didn't meet the business case as well as a centralised solution did hence BT doesn't get used.

dublinben 12y ago

It's worth mentioning that PopcornTime[0] is still available at a new domain, and has been forked by at least one group of developers. [0]http://popcorntime.io/ http://popcorntime.io/

celticninja 12y ago
thaat is worth mentioning. thank you
Fuxy 12y ago
All the forking is not helping it gain popularity. When there are so many similar versions which one do you choose. Also you probably don't want it to be popular anyway unless you don't mind the authorities knocking on your door.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

timdaub 12y ago

Good point. I think the market will always decide which media consumption method it wants to use depending on how frictionless the experience is. In the case of Bittorrent, as a mainstream consumer you'd have to know what program to download, where to find a torrent file yada, yada yada, while on Netflix you can just enter your credit card information and watch as many movies as you like. I think recently, Facebook also realized this, which is why they are currently aiming towards bringing a great search engine to their customers. Once that is in place sufficiently, homepages for small businesses will become obsolete, as people rather search for a company/product on Facebook than on the internet as it is a much easier to do. This same principle again will probably apply to Bitcoin and digital payments in general. Right now, Apple is doing a great job reducing friction in payments, at least for mainstream consumers.

cubano 12y ago
> Once that is in place sufficiently, homepages for small businesses will become obsolete, as people rather search for a company/product on Facebook than on the internet as it is a much easier to do. While this may or may not be true, am I the only one who is slightly frightened by the ramifications of this? Facebook is fine, for what it is, but the idea that it could soon become a proxy for the WWW isn't my idea of optimum.
- celticninja 12y ago
  It will become a proxy only for those people who allow it to. Which in general will be the older and less technically able generation who barely use the Internet other than to Facebook anyway. It certainly isn't going to replace Google and as usual with social media sites the kids will be looking to get away from the sites their parents use.

sp332 12y ago

Commercial success depends on a solid technical infrastructure. Netflix evaluated Bittorrent vs centralized distribution and went centralized. YouTube did the same. This indicates that BT is not technically better than a centralized model. But I think the only reason Netflix doesn't use BT is that the content owners are super-skittish about people having a copy of the data on their computers instead of streaming it and throwing it away. So even if BT is a better technical solution, it's politically unworkable.

celticninja 12y ago
I would disagree with this point >This indicates that BT is not technically better than a centralized model. It indicates that BT didn't provide something that Netflix et al did require. I imagine that is something like maintaining control of all digital copies of a work as you went on to suggest. This is not a technical limitation but rather a business need. So BT may be technically better (I imagine in terms of resources required to provide content it is superior) however it didn't meet the business case as well as a centralised solution did hence BT doesn't get used.