4 ms·

That is a very interesting idea. User-driven broadcasts would have to compete in the "P2P marketplace". Consider this scenario. Joost is P2P. If I start my own

That is a very interesting idea. User-driven broadcasts would have to compete in the "P2P marketplace". Consider this scenario. Joost is P2P. If I start my own Joost broadcast, I notify my peers of its existence. Those people who tune to my channel then transmit a notification to their peers, with the possibility of their rebroadcasting it. There would have to be some smoothing out of the protocol, but it could work. It would basically be P2P realtime YouTube.

JMiao 20y ago
But now you have to ask yourself a few more questions: - Channel Life: having a buttload of Joost channels that aren't well-maintained with new content is as annoying as amassing RSS feeds that are updated sporadically, sometimes month-to-month (which is why I don't like the idea of "channels," alas the folks at Joost do) - Attention Deficit: Joost ultimately aims to replace television. Could you realistically picture yourself watching YouTube clips separated into content creator channels for more than 30 minutes? - Community: One of Joost's best features is the interactive chat that brings content communities closer together. How does this happen with highly fragmented user content? These are just some of the things that immediately come to mind. I'm not saying that a Joost P2P TV system doesn't make sense, it just requires a lot of consideration.
- jganetsk 20y ago
  Let them roll out Joost as planned, and build a following (assuming that Joost is interesting). Then, watch them release a patch, which enables Joost to optionally function as I described. It would come at marginal cost to Joost. Some people will turn on the feature and experiment with it. Should somebody manage to put together an interesting channel, then it will spread throughout the system. For example, Joost could be the platform that drives Justin.tv.
  - JMiao 20y ago
    I wasn't really referring to Joost's viability as a P2P system -- it already is. I was more along the lines of addressing the viability of building a compelling user-content community -- it's a lot harder than it may sound, especially when you think about how would Joost's primary features co-exist with multitudes of relatively "shallow" content.

JMiao 20y ago

But now you have to ask yourself a few more questions: - Channel Life: having a buttload of Joost channels that aren't well-maintained with new content is as annoying as amassing RSS feeds that are updated sporadically, sometimes month-to-month (which is why I don't like the idea of "channels," alas the folks at Joost do) - Attention Deficit: Joost ultimately aims to replace television. Could you realistically picture yourself watching YouTube clips separated into content creator channels for more than 30 minutes? - Community: One of Joost's best features is the interactive chat that brings content communities closer together. How does this happen with highly fragmented user content? These are just some of the things that immediately come to mind. I'm not saying that a Joost P2P TV system doesn't make sense, it just requires a lot of consideration.

jganetsk 20y ago
Let them roll out Joost as planned, and build a following (assuming that Joost is interesting). Then, watch them release a patch, which enables Joost to optionally function as I described. It would come at marginal cost to Joost. Some people will turn on the feature and experiment with it. Should somebody manage to put together an interesting channel, then it will spread throughout the system. For example, Joost could be the platform that drives Justin.tv.
- JMiao 20y ago
  I wasn't really referring to Joost's viability as a P2P system -- it already is. I was more along the lines of addressing the viability of building a compelling user-content community -- it's a lot harder than it may sound, especially when you think about how would Joost's primary features co-exist with multitudes of relatively "shallow" content.