Cell phone video

[nightflier]

Here's a couple of tidbits regarding video on cell phones that, considering all the discussions I've had about it here, might be of interest:

- CBS/ABC moving forward with free ad-supported TV content (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303338304575156730008680938.html)

- Hulu still considering iPad launch (http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/10/hulu-ipad/)

- Netflix on iPad? Yep, and it's not Silverlight-based, either! (http://appadvice.com/appnn/2010/03/exclusive-official-netflix-streaming-ipad/)

I think the biggest factor is the move away from proprietary codecs like Silverlight and Flash. H264 through standard HTML5 seems to be what all the major companies (well except for Microsoft and Apple) are converging on. While there's still a lot of grumbling about how to squeeze more blood out of the consumers on the revenue side, it's clear that the iPad and the burgeoning market for cheap touch-pads and readers, are moving the cell phone industry forward... and dragging the movie & TV studios along, kicking and screaming as they predictably would.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

First, the ipad is not a cell phone, so your title is just a little misleading(well maybe a lot misleading).

In not one place on any of the articles you linked did it say the studios were forced kicking and screaming into supporting the ipad. So this means once again you are full of chite. The fact the Netflix is being offered is proof positive the studios are on board with this, or there is no way it would be offered. I know for a fact that Disney was on board for the ipad, because the whole deal was discussed at our last department meeting. So much for you false dragging and kicking slant.

It is better that you confine your observations to what the links say, or else you look like the fool you already are.

[E-Stat]

it's clear that the iPad and the burgeoning market for cheap touch-pads and readers, are moving the cell phone industry forward
Am I mistaken that the iPad does NOT contain a cell phone? My understanding is that it is a Wi-Fi enabled tablet computer.

rw

[pixelthis]

First, the ipad is not a cell phone, so your title is just a little misleading(well maybe a lot misleading).

In not one place on any of the articles you linked did it say the studios were forced kicking and screaming into supporting the ipad. So this means once again you are full of chite. The fact the Netflix is being offered is proof positive the studios are on board with this, or there is no way it would be offered. I know for a fact that Disney was on board for the ipad, because the whole deal was discussed at our last department meeting. So much for you false dragging and kicking slant.

It is better that you confine your observations to what the links say, or else you look like the fool you already are.

Typical vindictive, vicous talky post.
No the IPAD is not a "cellphone", but the ipad is just mentioned.
MEANWHILE Sharp has reported 3D video on portable devices, doesnt require
glasses, and is going to become standard sooner or later.
The world seems to be embracing small portable devices.
AND movies and media over the net, something Talky said wouldnt happen for a decade or more.
Probably why hes' so cranky, hes' been proven wrong yet again:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Typical vindictive, vicous talky post.

I don't like stupidity, which is why I don't like you very much.


No the IPAD is not a "cellphone", but the ipad is just mentioned.

All three articles put the ipad front and center, not just mentioned. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.


MEANWHILE Sharp has reported 3D video on portable devices, doesnt require
glasses, and is going to become standard sooner or later.

I bet you not. When people discover the eye problems you can get from having a screen that close to your face, the convergent and divergent distortions from trying to focus on objects a foot from your face that represent foreground and background images(what a headache), and having to quickly focus and re-focus on small images(which will give you quite a bit of eyestrain). Besides, how do you market something who's effect cannot be seen on any media except live and in person?

Not everything 3D is going to be a slam dunk.



The world seems to be embracing small portable devices.

Yes, but no necessarily as the main viewing device for movies or television for that matter. In spite of all the hoopala, movie traffic on the web is tiny compared to youtube clips and short video programming. Even the success of the iphone didn't result in an uptick of movie viewing traffic tracked on the web.


AND movies and media over the net, something Talky said wouldnt happen for a decade or more.
Probably why hes' so cranky, hes' been proven wrong yet again:1:

Cranky, you don't know if I am cranky, you are on the internet. What I said(once again reading comprehension failure) it the WIDESPREAD delivery of movies was still ten or more years away. The reason I say this is because youtube videos and short television programming in terms of downloads and streaming are already clogging up the internet, and not everyone is really doing it, it is a small amount of people. Once you get hundreds of millions of people simultaneously downloading content(which is exactly what will happen once this becomes the dominate delivery system) such as movies with lossless 24/48khz soundtracks, high bit rate 1080p video streams(let alone 4k), and or 3D(the internet MUST be able to do this to keep up with the physical disc and it requires 50% more bandwidth to do it), then you are going to have a to have a much more efficient system with a larger bandwidth and capacity, or the entire thing will just clog up. With the current amount of investment in infrastructure, it is going to take decades for us to develop a system capable of doing this, and I think every analyst in the country has said this(including the telecoms and cable companies themselves). I have said this, Wooch has said this time and time again. The fact is digital downloads, while growing in volume, still cannot keep up with physical media in terms of revenue. So slow down with the I am wrong bit, the internet still is not the dominate delivery system for movies, that title belongs to the physical disc at the moment.

[pixelthis]

I don't like stupidity, which is why I don't like you very much.

THANKS.
A good judge of who you are is who likes and doesnt like you much.
Which makes this statement high praise



All three articles put the ipad front and center, not just mentioned. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Comprehension of anything is not your strong suite



I bet you not. When people discover the eye problems you can get from having a screen that close to your face, the convergent and divergent distortions from trying to focus on objects a foot from your face that represent foreground and background images(what a headache), and having to quickly focus and re-focus on small images(which will give you quite a bit of eyestrain). Besides, how do you market something who's effect cannot be seen on any media except live and in person?

This from a boster of 3D, which causes crushing headachs




Not everything 3D is going to be a slam dunk.

nothing 3D is going to be a "slam dunk".
But 3D without glasses is the best bet




Cranky, you don't know if I am cranky, you are on the internet. What I said(once again reading comprehension failure) it the WIDESPREAD delivery of movies was still ten or more years away. The reason I say this is because youtube videos and short television programming in terms of downloads and streaming are already clogging up the internet, and not everyone is really doing it, it is a small amount of people. Once you get hundreds of millions of people simultaneously downloading content(which is exactly what will happen once this becomes the dominate delivery system) such as movies with lossless 24/48khz soundtracks, high bit rate 1080p video streams(let alone 4k), and or 3D(the internet MUST be able to do this to keep up with the physical disc and it requires 50% more bandwidth to do it), then you are going to have a to have a much more efficient system with a larger bandwidth and capacity, or the entire thing will just clog up. With the current amount of investment in infrastructure, it is going to take decades for us to develop a system capable of doing this, and I think every analyst in the country has said this(including the telecoms and cable companies themselves). I have said this, Wooch has said this time and time again. The fact is digital downloads, while growing in volume, still cannot keep up with physical media in terms of revenue. So slow down with the I am wrong bit, the internet still is not the dominate delivery system for movies, that title belongs to the physical disc at the moment.

Catch up, you old fart.
The Administration has announced that broadcast, and other means of video delivery are
going to be merged in a decade.
BASICALLY all of the various forms of media, is going to be integrated into a seamless whole, versus the hodgepoge it is today.
Television, phones, computers, PDA'S, are going to all be part of a net universe.
A big job, but we are closer than most think.
The new IPAD is net capable, and nothing made in the future will not be net capable
without risking obsolescence straight out of the box.
And you oughta know about being "obsolete".:1:

[nightflier]

lil't, I recall having quite a few debates with you about video downloads, via wireless, and on small screens. You certainly did your best to disparage everything regarding it, and now we find out it's all happening in the "happiest" studio on earth too. Fact is you were wrong on so many counts, it's no wonder your superiors don't value your opinion anymore. Let's review, shall we:

1. It is here already, not a decade off. I've been using video consistently and w/o technical issues for some time already, and so have a lot of people at my company. I was just at a strategy meeting this morning, and one of my colleagues who just came back from Brazil said every other person on the plane was watching video on an iPhone or similar device. This is also what I'm hearing from my contacts in Ireland, China, Germany, Israel, South Africa, and lots of other places. This is huge, it is current, and you still insist on downplaying it.

2. The iPad is a small screen, not a big screen. As I do recall, you said that small screens weren't a concern for the media companies. Well CBS and NetFlix seem to differ. You especially derided me for suggesting that NetFlix would appear on small screens and guess what, they did. Even Disney, your neck of the woods, is jumping on the bandwagon, something you certainly didn't see coming. Fact is, you got this one pretty wrong, and now you're trying to weasel out of it, again.

3. You said there was no profitability in small-screen video, and you emphasized that advertising-based funding was even farther down the line. You also said that free content was never going to happen, remember? Well looks like you're wrong on all counts, again.

4. You said that the infrastructure wasn't there for internet video. I told you that technological solutions would be found. You laughed when I suggested that the wireless internet was going to be a big factor here. Well again, wrong on all counts.

5. I said that for internet and wireless video, resolution and surround sound would not be that important. You practically had a coronary. You said that the media companies would not suffer themselves to hobble the product down for internet and wireless downloading. Guess what? Wrong again.

The fact you can't wrap your hear around is that this industry is changing very fast, and right now. Just like they compressed the quality out of music to sell more of it, they are now going to do this with video. Yes, I know, it's painful, but it's happening right now.

I told you that movies were so commoditized that for most movies, people weren't willing to pay full price, or to see it in full-rez surround-sound, or to own the physical disk. You laughed at that. I also said that plot-lines, big action sequences, special effects, and yes, even 3D are not impressive enough anymore for most consumers. You were all over me for that too. In the end, people want to rent, they want to sample, they want it free or near-free, and they want to move onto the next movie.

Downloads and small screens make all that a reality for more movies and more eyeballs - and as you, our capitalist flag-waiver can surely agree, quantity, not quality is what the profit motive is all about. Welcome to the fast-food of video. Disney laughed at Ray Krock when he wanted to put a McDonald's in Disneyland. They wised up, of course, and we can only hope they wise up enough to stop listening to you.

Do they know about your posts here on this forum? I'm guessing you don't want them to.

So how does that crow taste?

[Woochifer]

1. It is here already, not a decade off. I've been using video consistently and w/o technical issues for some time already, and so have a lot of people at my company. I was just at a strategy meeting this morning, and one of my colleagues who just came back from Brazil said every other person on the plane was watching video on an iPhone or similar device. This is also what I'm hearing from my contacts in Ireland, China, Germany, Israel, South Africa, and lots of other places. This is huge, it is current, and you still insist on downplaying it.

And my contacts in Chinatown indicate that a large number of shopkeepers still do their accounting with an abacus. Anecdotes don't make for a trend.

Behavior on an airplane does not say anything about how average consumers consume media in their normal everyday life. When I fly cross-country, I will watch movies on my laptop as well. But, over 99.9% of my life is not spent flying cross-country. As usual, you're taking a tile out of a mosaic and claiming to know what the big picture looks like.


2. The iPad is a small screen, not a big screen. As I do recall, you said that small screens weren't a concern for the media companies. Well CBS and NetFlix seem to differ. You especially derided me for suggesting that NetFlix would appear on small screens and guess what, they did. Even Disney, your neck of the woods, is jumping on the bandwagon, something you certainly didn't see coming. Fact is, you got this one pretty wrong, and now you're trying to weasel out of it, again.

And an iPad is not a cell phone (as that is the topic of this discussion, right?)

ESPN has one of the most extensive media streaming sites in the world (~4,000 live games streaming online last year, plus countless highlight reels), yet the head of that department says that 99% of the audience remains on the cable/satellite broadcast side. ESPN all but admits that their ESPN360 site serves primarily a hedge to squeeze carriage fees out of ISPs and mobile providers.

Again (and you still haven't answered this), explain to me how there's a trend towards small screen viewing when TVs continue to command the vast majority of viewing time and the average size of TVs sold keeps getting larger.


3. You said there was no profitability in small-screen video, and you emphasized that advertising-based funding was even farther down the line. You also said that free content was never going to happen, remember? Well looks like you're wrong on all counts, again.

There isn't profitability right now. It's all about building value in a site before spinning it off or leveraging it for other purposes. For example, Hulu gets millions of page views, yet they have lost money hand over fist. Also, Google's losses on YouTube were estimated at half a billion dollars last year.

The media initiatives are moving towards a "TV everywhere" model in which more and more content will go behind a subscription wall. NBC already previewed how this model might work when they put their Olympic streaming coverage behind a log-in wall open only to current cable and satellite subscribers.

This is where you're not seeing the big picture. You get wound up about inside-the-beltway techie issues that the general public could care less about. Yet, you don't see how all these streaming initiatives from Hulu, ABC, CBS, etc. are nothing more than chess pieces in a much bigger game. Content seems "free" or "ad supported" but it's really not. ESPN's an example of a huge and heavily promoted streaming site that they've been using like a battering ram to exact carriage fees from ISPs and mobile providers. Guess who ultimately pays for it.

You can bet that Hulu and other online properties are getting similarly peddled, with the end user paying in some form -- whether directly with subscriber fees or indirectly through other fees that eventually get passed down to the consumer. Yet, for all the hype and attention that these initiatives attract, the viewership (and actual revenues) remains only a fraction of what the TV side generates.


4. You said that the infrastructure wasn't there for internet video. I told you that technological solutions would be found. You laughed when I suggested that the wireless internet was going to be a big factor here. Well again, wrong on all counts.

It isn't a big factor for movies and long form entertainment. Every study done so far has come to the same conclusion. Network and mobile video usage is high, but viewing time is short. TV usage is higher, and viewing time is long and getting longer. I guess that simple truth remains controversial to you. Then again, most techies I know are also clueless and rather hostile about how average consumers live. These are the same guys who look down on anyone who shops at a retail store as some kind of luddite, when the fact is that e-commerce accounts for less than 4% of U.S. retail activity according to last quarter's Dept of Commerce numbers.


The fact you can't wrap your hear around is that this industry is changing very fast, and right now. Just like they compressed the quality out of music to sell more of it, they are now going to do this with video. Yes, I know, it's painful, but it's happening right now.

The industry always changes, but it does so in ways that logically connect one trend to another -- not in the ideologically-based instant end states that you seem so fond of. You keep obsessing about small screens, yet you haven't produced one shred of evidence that smart phones and computers have displaced TVs in any significant way. The last Nielson study found that growth in TV viewing time alone was more than the combined total viewing time for computer and mobile video.

Also your point about compressing "the quality of music to sell more of it" does not make sense at any level. If compression equates to better sales, then the music industry better do more of it because music sales have been declining since the mid-90s. The trend with audio has always been towards portability, and there is a history of inferior audio supplanting audibly superior audio for sake of portability and convenience (does the cassette format, which dominated sales for more than a decade, ring a bell?). The compression goes to the "sounds good enough" edict that has always dominated the consumer audio market.

The video side has consistently moved in the direction of higher resolution and bigger screens. Consumers who transitioned from B&W to color are not going back to B&W. Consumers who transitioned from 25" consoles to 50" flat panels are not downgrading to 2.5". The growing number of consumers who have transitioned to HD are not suddenly going to fuzzy pixelated pictures for their primary viewing. Consumers who have watched TV from the comfort their sofas and easy chairs since the dawn of the TV age are not going to suddenly spend hours at a time staring down at a handheld device.


I told you that movies were so commoditized that for most movies, people weren't willing to pay full price, or to see it in full-rez surround-sound, or to own the physical disk. You laughed at that. I also said that plot-lines, big action sequences, special effects, and yes, even 3D are not impressive enough anymore for most consumers. You were all over me for that too. In the end, people want to rent, they want to sample, they want it free or near-free, and they want to move onto the next movie.

So, if people don't want 3D, then how come the majority of consumers choose 3D theater screenings over 2D when given a choice? If people don't want physical disks, then how come disc media continues to make the up the vast majority of overall movie entertainment spending?

Your diatribes about "commoditized" movies continually ignore the release window, which is by far the biggest demand factor for movies (outside of the movie itself). Consumers pay to see a movie at theaters when it's new. They will pay more for a DVD or Blu-ray when it's new. They will pay more for PPV rental when it's new. Upwards of 25% to 50% of the total revenue for a studio movie's theatrical run, its video rental, and/or DVD/Blu-ray purchases occur during the first week that they are released. Consumer demand for movies is front-loaded and always has been. Movies only become commodified after they have exhausted these front-loaded release windows. Why do you think Netflix's $9/month streaming service only includes older movies that have fallen off the rental charts? Or is that news to you?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

THANKS.
A good judge of who you are is who likes and doesnt like you much.
Which makes this statement high praise

But not in a positive way at alll.....





Comprehension of anything is not your strong suite

How does a person with zero reading comprehension make this judgement? With more ignorance? I have forgotten more about audio and video than you have learned in your entire useless life.





This from a boster of 3D, which causes crushing headachs

Idiotic response loaded with stupidity. If you get a headache from large screen digital 3D, that is signs of a eye problem. If you get a headache trying to do 3D on a 7" screen, it is because the screen is too small to support 3D. I know you won't understand a word of this as it requires more than a 1st grade education and more than two teeth.

The academic research suggests that the 3D effect of an object or scene safely (without risking visual fatigue or at least intolerance) coming out from the screen towards the audience would be about 87% of the distance to you when seated about 65 ft. away from the screen in a commercial theater……..about 62% of the distance towards you when seated about 16 ft. away from a home theater screen…..about 14% of the distance towards you when seated about 20 inches away from your computer display and a measly 8% of the distance towards you when holding one of those handheld displays 10 inches from your eyes. When you hold a display that close to your face, the center focus is at the end of your nose, and keeping your eyes focused to the center of your nose is sure to give you eye strain within minutes.

The 3D "impact" is non-linear. You get decreasing returns as your screen is smaller and smaller in size, without theoretically risking intolerable vergence-accommodation conflict and visual fatigue, of which the viewers’ age and elasticity of the lens will also be determining factors.




nothing 3D is going to be a "slam dunk".
But 3D without glasses is the best bet

If get headaches from watching 3D with glasses, nothing will change without the glasses. The glasses do nothing to your eyes, so not having them will change nothing. Only ignorance of 3D would lead you to believe the glasses are the problem.






Catch up, you old fart.
The Administration has announced that broadcast, and other means of video delivery are
going to be merged in a decade.
BASICALLY all of the various forms of media, is going to be integrated into a seamless whole, versus the hodgepoge it is today.
Television, phones, computers, PDA'S, are going to all be part of a net universe.
A big job, but we are closer than most think.
The new IPAD is net capable, and nothing made in the future will not be net capable
without risking obsolescence straight out of the box.
And you oughta know about being "obsolete".:1:

The administration has annouced a lot of things, some of which they'll be no money to support, or businesses will fight like hell against.

In order for this to happen, they are going to have to significantly increase their infrastructure investment, because right now short videos are clogging up the works, and we have not even talked about a full movie in REAL 1080p with a lossless 24/48khz audio. 3D with its 50% bandwidth overhead will extend this period even further down the road.

[nightflier]

And my contacts in Chinatown indicate that a large number of shopkeepers still do their accounting with an abacus.

Is this what you mean by presenting facts? Funny.


Behavior on an airplane does not say anything about how average consumers consume media in their normal everyday life. When I fly cross-country, I will watch movies on my laptop as well. But, over 99.9% of my life is not spent flying cross-country. As usual, you're taking a tile out of a mosaic and claiming to know what the big picture looks like.

You're making a completely irrelevant argument. You said people aren't going to watch movies on small screens, remember? Well I said that on public transportation they would. Then you came back that these trips were too short for movies. Well plane rides aren't. You just can't accept it when you're being called on your own words, can you?


And an iPad is not a cell phone (as that is the topic of this discussion, right?)

Same OS, same development platform. What will be available on iPad with also be available on the iPhone. If you don't know that, then I'm surprised you are in the position you are in. I'm really amazed they haven't asked you to leave yet.


Again (and you still haven't answered this), explain to me how there's a trend towards small screen viewing when TVs continue to command the vast majority of viewing time and the average size of TVs sold keeps getting larger.

Yes, I've explained this over & over again. There is a noticeable growth in small screen use for video. Whatever is happening on the TV side is inconsequential. I never said it would replace TV viewing, I'm only saying that small screen viewing is growing. Stop trying to pigeon hole my point, it's not going to work.


There isn't profitability right now. It's all about building value in a site before spinning it off or leveraging it for other purposes. For example, Hulu gets millions of page views, yet they have lost money hand over fist. Also, Google's losses on YouTube were estimated at half a billion dollars last year.

I don't know or care that Hulu is loosing money. What I'm reading is that NetFlix just signed onto a deal for the iPad, something you said would not happen. It's clear many companies are buying into video on small screens, even if the profits aren't there yet. Funny, that's also something you said would not happen. You're full of contradictions, aren't you?

By the way, my contact at Google said YouTube was actually in the black this year. He also said that the company easily absorbed the losses from last year, which by the way, were not half a $B. How updated is your info? Oh that's right, you base everything you know on old stats... I forgot.


This is where you're not seeing the big picture. ..., you don't see how all these streaming initiatives from Hulu, ABC, CBS, etc. are nothing more than chess pieces in a much bigger game. Content seems "free" or "ad supported" but it's really not. ESPN's an example of a huge and heavily promoted streaming site that they've been using like a battering ram to exact carriage fees from ISPs and mobile providers. Guess who ultimately pays for it.

See this is where your lack of knowledge shows through. Most real-time video streaming on small screens is actually viewed over WiFi, not the cellular link-up. And WiFi, is typically not subject to additional fees based on bandwidth or data rates. That said, the majority of viewing is not real-time, it is downloaded and viewed later, much like music is, but the same argument applies here too, since it is then also acquired via WiFi or a hardwired Ethernet connection on the computer that the device is plugged into. In any case, the consumer doesn't pay extra for video compared to what he previously paid for data.

P.S. This unlimited access model is also a problem for you media mogul types, because it doesn't generate the revenues you like to see. You would rather charge per viewing and per connection. You also want to keep people from viewing their downloaded content on any device in their home. The more you create restrictions and the more you jack up prices on the ISPs, the more people get disgusted with your thumbscrewing methods. This drives them back to piracy, which is what no one wants. I guess you can't see that either.

In any case, that means little in relation to our discussion. People are viewing more video on small screens than before (even if they are having to pay a bit more for it), which is something you just can't accept.


Yet, for all the hype and attention that these initiatives attract, the viewership (and actual revenues) remains only a fraction of what the TV side generates.

Again, not talking about TV viewing on big screens, here.


Every study done so far has come to the same conclusion. Network and mobile video usage is high, but viewing time is short. TV usage is higher, and viewing time is long and getting longer. I guess that simple truth remains controversial to you. Then again, most techies I know are also clueless and rather hostile about how average consumers live. These are the same guys who look down on anyone who shops at a retail store as some kind of luddite, when the fact is that e-commerce accounts for less than 4% of U.S. retail activity according to last quarter's Dept of Commerce numbers.

So what? Again, I'm not saying anything about large screen viewing or what is being watched. My point is only about the growth of video on small screens, something you continue to say is insignificant and irrelevant. Considering how many people all over the world are now making a living on these technologies, I can hardly agree.

P.S. That 4% or retail is still significant. According to Wikipedia, it was $204 billion in 2008, an increase of 17 percent over 2007. What other industry was growing by 17% in 2008? Certainly not Hollywood. And despite your obvious disdain for Google and the Android OS, they grew by 236% in the last two quarters and are expected to overtake Apple within the year. So what if revenue on large screens is greater? We're not talking about that.


You keep obsessing about small screens, yet you haven't produced one shred of evidence that smart phones and computers have displaced TVs in any significant way.

I never said they would displace large screens, so why do I need to present evidence?


The last Nielson study found that growth in TV viewing time alone was more than the combined total viewing time for computer and mobile video.

Hmmm, I think that is the same Nielsen report that I quoted elsewhere showing the growth of smartphones, isn't it?


Also your point about compressing "the quality of music to sell more of it" does not make sense at any level. If compression equates to better sales, then the music industry better do more of it because music sales have been declining since the mid-90s. The trend with audio has always been towards portability, and there is a history of inferior audio supplanting audibly superior audio for sake of portability and convenience (does the cassette format, which dominated sales for more than a decade, ring a bell?). The compression goes to the "sounds good enough" edict that has always dominated the consumer audio market.

Nothing you say above contradicts anything I've said or shows that I've failed to "make sense at any level." Fact is, compressed music is the way it's sold now most of the time. This is also going to happen to video. It's about quantity, not quality because that is what your stockholders are clamoring for.


The video side has consistently moved in the direction of higher resolution and bigger screens. Consumers who transitioned from B&W to color are not going back to B&W. Consumers who transitioned from 25" consoles to 50" flat panels are not downgrading to 2.5". The growing number of consumers who have transitioned to HD are not suddenly going to fuzzy pixelated pictures for their primary viewing. Consumers who have watched TV from the comfort their sofas and easy chairs since the dawn of the TV age are not going to suddenly spend hours at a time staring down at a handheld device.

Again, just hot air. I never said they would give up their TVs or suddenly switch to small screens. The TVs will just stay put, and you know this, but you're trying to make an argument where there is none. What I am saying is that small screens are a growing phenomenon that you don't want to acknowledge.


So, if people don't want 3D, then how come the majority of consumers choose 3D theater screenings over 2D when given a choice?

Only in theaters.


If people don't want physical disks, then how come disc media continues to make the up the vast majority of overall movie entertainment spending?

You're looking at old data and sales figures only. As I've already explained so many times, that's only a piece of it.


Your diatribes about "commoditized" movies continually ignore the release window, which is by far the biggest demand factor for movies (outside of the movie itself). Consumers pay to see a movie at theaters when it's new. They will pay more for a DVD or Blu-ray when it's new. They will pay more for PPV rental when it's new. Upwards of 25% to 50% of the total revenue for a studio movie's theatrical run, its video rental, and/or DVD/Blu-ray purchases occur during the first week that they are released. Consumer demand for movies is front-loaded and always has been. Movies only become commodified after they have exhausted these front-loaded release windows. Why do you think Netflix's $9/month streaming service only includes older movies that have fallen off the rental charts? Or is that news to you?

What does the commoditization of movies have to do with the release window? It's still a fact that commoditization is happening with video. What was a special experience before, that is, going to the movie theater, is now common and ho-hum. It's done all the time and isn't seen as something special anymore. Don't feel bad, it boosts your precious ticket sales, remember? But what you fail to see is that commoditizing video also makes it worth less and that is precisely what a web-savvy consumer is expecting - lower prices - and something that you studio moguls are doing your darndest to prevent.

Your continued opposition to video on small screens is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at safeguarding your money-grubbing way of charging too much for too little. That simply doesn't fly on the Internet. It makes you stand in the way of technological progress, and we all know that's a loosing battle.

[Woochifer]

Is this what you mean by presenting facts? Funny.

No, it's simply illustrative of the absurdity of your passing off anecdotes as general trends.


You're making a completely irrelevant argument. You said people aren't going to watch movies on small screens, remember? Well I said that on public transportation they would. Then you came back that these trips were too short for movies. Well plane rides aren't. You just can't accept it when you're being called on your own words, can you?

Good gawd, you really got issues. How often do people ride airplanes compared to daily commute trips?

Most public transit trips ARE too short for watching full length movies. Or is that news to you?


Same OS, same development platform. What will be available on iPad with also be available on the iPhone. If you don't know that, then I'm surprised you are in the position you are in. I'm really amazed they haven't asked you to leave yet.

And again, the iPad is not a cell phone, and all of your backpeddling conflation doesn't change that. :out:


Yes, I've explained this over & over again. There is a noticeable growth in small screen use for video. Whatever is happening on the TV side is inconsequential. I never said it would replace TV viewing, I'm only saying that small screen viewing is growing. Stop trying to pigeon hole my point, it's not going to work.

No need to pigeon hole you when you've done it to yourself. You've stated repeatedly that small screens are taking away from TV viewing. I've asked for evidence, and you haven't provided any of it. Maybe that's why you're now backpeddling and avoiding the subject of TV viewing. I've said many times that adoption of online and network video is widespread, but the duration is short and it has not displaced TV viewing.


I don't know or care that Hulu is loosing money. What I'm reading is that NetFlix just signed onto a deal for the iPad, something you said would not happen. It's clear many companies are buying into video on small screens, even if the profits aren't there yet. Funny, that's also something you said would not happen. You're full of contradictions, aren't you?

You don't know or care about Hulu because its business losses undermine your entire argument about web video. Show me any instance where I said that Netflix wouldn't sign on with the iPad. Your paranoia's starting to get the better of you.


By the way, my contact at Google said YouTube was actually in the black this year. He also said that the company easily absorbed the losses from last year, which by the way, were not half a $B. How updated is your info? Oh that's right, you base everything you know on old stats... I forgot.

And you base everything on your techie friends, who may or may not actually have access to that information. Google can "absorb" the losses, but that's hardly assurance that web video is the money making machine that you claim that it is.


See this is where your lack of knowledge shows through. Most real-time video streaming on small screens is actually viewed over WiFi, not the cellular link-up. And WiFi, is typically not subject to additional fees based on bandwidth or data rates. That said, the majority of viewing is not real-time, it is downloaded and viewed later, much like music is, but the same argument applies here too, since it is then also acquired via WiFi or a hardwired Ethernet connection on the computer that the device is plugged into. In any case, the consumer doesn't pay extra for video compared to what hepreviously paid for data.

Try to think rationally for a change before getting into these histrionics. Who do you think is providing that Wi-Fi signal? Do you really think that an "ISP" or "service provider" refers solely to cellular signals? If you can view content on the ESPN360 site at your home or office, you're already paying for it because the carriage fee has been built into your service charges.


P.S. This unlimited access model is also a problem for you media mogul types, because it doesn't generate the revenues you like to see. You would rather charge per viewing and per connection. You also want to keep people from viewing their downloaded content on any device in their home. The more you create restrictions and the more you jack up prices on the ISPs, the more people get disgusted with your thumbscrewing methods. This drives them back to piracy, which is what no one wants. I guess you can't see that either.

This has nothing to do with what I'd "rather" or "like to" see happen. My points simply indicate what's going on with the media discussions. It's all nothing more than a high stakes chess match.

You keep thinking that the ad-sponsored model will work for online video. Well, if it was, why is there so much talk now about walling off the content and going to a "TV everywhere" subscription model? ESPN and NBC are just the tip of the iceburg. Cable/satellite penetration is over 80%, so going to this model would not have any impact on existing subscribers at all, since they would have access to online content as part of their cable/satellite subscription.

With ESPN360, consumers don't even know about the carriage fees, since it's not itemized on their bills. However, many customers do care when they try to view ESPN360 site content and the alert message pops up that the video feed is blocked because their ISP has not signed on. ESPN knows that some customers can and will change ISPs in order to access their content. That's why most of the major ISPs, except Time Warner Cable, have agreed to ESPN's carriage fee demands. It has nothing to do with whether I think this is good or bad. It's happening, simple as that.


Again, not talking about TV viewing on big screens, here.

Of course not. Because if we actually talked about actual viewing habits rather than your random anecdotes, then your whimsical flights of fancy would get shot to shreds.


So what? Again, I'm not saying anything about large screen viewing or what is being watched. My point is only about the growth of video on small screens, something you continue to say is insignificant and irrelevant.

Because it is insignificant and irrelevant in relative terms. 7 minutes per day for mobile and computer video viewing versus 5+ hours per day spent watching TVs is a wipeout. Until the trends start showing mobile and online video usage actually accounting for significant minutes, it's nothing more than the usual rounds of hype coming from the tech press.


P.S. That 4% or retail is still significant. According to Wikipedia, it was $204 billion in 2008, an increase of 17 percent over 2007. What other industry was growing by 17% in 2008? Certainly not Hollywood. And despite your obvious disdain for Google and the Android OS, they grew by 236% in the last two quarters and are expected to overtake Apple within the year. So what if revenue on large screens is greater? We're not talking about that.

4% of retail is NOT significant because much of the growth in e-commerce has been at the expense of other forms of remote retailing (i.e., print catalogs, phone-based mail order, network marketing, non-internet direct-to-consumer sales, etc.). $204 billion might seem like a big number until you compare that with the $404 billion that Walmart ALONE took in last year. Physical B&M stores, which techies have been writing doomsday stories about for more than a decade, still control 90+% of the retail market. Like I said, this seems to always surprise techies who bought into the hype that online retailing has already taken over.

Obviously, you don't want to talk about revenues from regular TV viewing because it only reinforces just how far mobile and online video have to go before they can even register as a statistical blip in overall revenue.


Hmmm, I think that is the same Nielsen report that I quoted elsewhere showing the growth of smartphones, isn't it?

Yes, all that growth and still very limited actual viewing time for the video features.


Nothing you say above contradicts anything I've said or shows that I've failed to "make sense at any level."

Everything I said points to why the video and audio industries have gone in completely different directions. Pointing to the audio side and claiming that's exactly what will happen with video, despite ample evidence that consumers utilize both technologies very differently, is why you're not making any sense.


Fact is, compressed music is the way it's sold now most of the time.

Fact is that 65% of music sold remains in the CD format.


This is also going to happen to video. It's about quantity, not quality because that is what your stockholders are clamoring for.

Nope, it's about what will generate the greatest stream of revenues. Quantity alone won't get you there if it can't replace the revenues that higher margin products like Blu-ray and DVDs generate. Consumers seem to care quite a bit about quality. Why else would they buy HDTVs and subscribe to HD services and buy Blu-ray players?


Again, just hot air. I never said they would give up their TVs or suddenly switch to small screens. The TVs will just stay put, and you know this, but you're trying to make an argument where there is none. What I am saying is that small screens are a growing phenomenon that you don't want to acknowledge.

I've said repeatedly that online video usage is high, but the actual viewing time is low. Those are the facts. I acknowledge those. What I don't acknowledge is baseless prognostication that comes from ideologically blindered and wishful thinking.


You're looking at old data and sales figures only. As I've already explained so many times, that's only a piece of it.

Old data being the latest figures available? You've yet to provide any evidence outside of your techie anecdotes.


What does the commoditization of movies have to do with the release window? It's still a fact that commoditization is happening with video. What was a special experience before, that is, going to the movie theater, is now common and ho-hum. It's done all the time and isn't seen as something special anymore. Don't feel bad, it boosts your precious ticket sales, remember? But what you fail to see is that commoditizing video also makes it worth less and that is precisely what a web-savvy consumer is expecting - lower prices - and something that you studio moguls are doing your darndest to prevent.

And once again, it all goes over your head. Your ideological devotion to free and cheap ignores how consumers actually behave. All of your rants about studio moguls and moping about the good ole days when theater going was "special" don't change the fact that consumers are WILLING to pay more to watch or purchase a movie right around the release date. Why do I say they are willing? Because they DO.

Demand is not a constant and the studios would be positively foolish to leave money on the table when consumer demand is highest. Commodification (where value is more undifferentiated from title to title) does not occur until long after the initial release window has passed. How do you think older DVDs wind up in the discount bins and only older movies that have dropped off the rental charts appear on Netflix's streaming service? It's certainly not because demand is high.


Your continued opposition to video on small screens is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at safeguarding your money-grubbing way of charging too much for too little. That simply doesn't fly on the Internet. It makes you stand in the way of technological progress, and we all know that's a loosing battle.

Getting awfully personal, now aren't we? Contrary to your rather curious accusation, I have no dog in this fight. I simply call it as I see it, and many prognostications about the internet from techies have been dead wrong over the years.

Where do I ever indicate that I "oppose" video on small screens? Speaking to facts about how consumers actually use media has nothing to do with whether I oppose or approve of something.

The thing about consumers is that they have a mind of their own and will select and reject technologies as they see fit. The overall pattern of consumer behavior does not shift overnight, and technological adoption is no exception. And all of your ideologically driven rants about "progress" and pissing matches about open versus closed do nothing to change this. Arrogant and myopic attitudes about the manifest destiny of the internet, without any regard for consumer behavior or simple market feasibility, basically created the dotcom bubble a decade ago. Obviously, some people didn't learn from those lessons.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

By the way, my contact at Google said YouTube was actually in the black this year. He also said that the company easily absorbed the losses from last year, which by the way, were not half a $B. How updated is your info? Oh that's right, you base everything you know on old stats... I forgot.

This is how quick you can catch someone in a lie.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2010/02/youtube-turns-five-years-old-but-without-google-it-would-be-bankrupt.html

The link is dated this year as well. Once again Nighliar, you need better contacts than your imaginary friends that are gay, Chinese, and work at Google. Everyone knows that youtube has not made a single wooden nickel since it was purchased by Google.

I found this comment pretty telling since I have mentioned this to you before.

YouTube delivers over a billion videos a day but only monetizes a billion videos a week. That means they are only generating revenue from about 14% of all the content streamed on the site.

With only 14% of your videos generating any profit, it is pretty much guaranteed that Google will not make a dime on youTube for years to come. That 14% has to support the other 86% existence, so you can see there is no way your friend (most likely imaginary) is correct.

[nightflier]

Wooch,

I will give you this much, I wrote that post thinking I was answering lil't. So I guess I got caught there, lol. Then again your opinions are so alike, it's increasingly hard to tell them appart. Kind of like the good cop / bad cop interrogations. I'm still amazed I didn't catch that. So with all due respect, please excuse the personal attacks, they were most certainly directed squarely at your evil twin. Too funny.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

LOLOL, the fool didn't even know who he was talking to....can you get any more air in that head?

[3LB]

I'm gonna chime and get a tad off-topic, but points raised by both sides is this thread make me really discouraged. I hate hate hate the direction the intrernet is going. This is one time I hope the TV and movie win. I liked when the internet was the information super highway, not the visual entertainment medium its quickly becoming. When entertainment and information try to merge, fact-based information always suffers. Call it a tabloid mentallity. Look at supposedly educational based networks like Discover and History channels, what with all their alleged reallity shows. I guess you can only do so many expose's on Hilter/Nazi Germany.

Hopefully, things will balance out some how. As much damage as the recording industry and entities like Clear Channel have done to music, you can still find some amazing, original artists out there, on this here internet. Of course, I'm sure there are those who love the Disnefication of mainstream art and music, and its prolly very stodgy of me to look at it that way, but I do.

Perhaps the internet will become like cable and be sold in packages. I'll gladly eschew all video/visual based websites, just like I did when I was on a dial-up connection. I'm afraid the price of internet will be artificially bloated when its glutted with the same visual crap that makes TV completely dispensable for me. Not that the internet hasn't been inundated with its own brand of dumbass for years, but TV and movie product on the internet will be like having the inmates running the asylum.

Just my two-cents. I hope I'm wrong. But I'm a 'don't fix it if it ain't broke' kinda guy. I really do hope the technology that Wooch and Sir Tantrum talks about really is a decade away. Of course, there's no counting for quailty and taste. You can watch a lot of new release movies on the internet now, as long as you don't mind if a dude's head is in the way.

[nightflier]

It's no secret Rayburn's been on a tear against Google, and especially YouTube for some time. You know, I asked around about him and he certainly has no friends at Google. Could it be that he is Principal and Executive Vice President for StreamingMedia.com, a subscription-based service who stands to loose a lot of money from sites like YouTube? You see, unlike Google, StreamingMedia has no other sources of income: it's a one trick pony. And that is right up your alley, as is Rayburn and his blog, and that is really at the crux of the issue.

It figures you would agree with Rayburn's black & white view of Google's revenue - it fits your narrow-minded thinking. Fact is, Google doesn't measure revenue strictly on direct sales from YouTube. To them, YouTube is part of the larger infrastructure that makes up its core business, which is advertising. I mean really, are you going to tell me that YouTube isn't being used everyday to add value to Google's other technologies like AdWords & AdSense? But you won't accept that. You've found your one source, your proof, your justification, and you will hold onto that for dear life, because it meets your narrow-minded needs. So let me see if I can explain it in another way.

You see this is exactly what I mean when I say that you can only understand the world in a very structured and defined way. It has to be black & white, rigid, and categorized into little compartments that you can wrap your head around. Any deviation from that, any gray area, anything that cannot be readily tallied up and compartmentalized for easy mental absorption is dismissed as irrelevant. This is how you make your arguments, this is the world you live in, and guess what, it's far from an accurate view of reality. I'm sure it really fires you up when you have to face the fact that economics, politics, society, nature, all of reality, really, isn't black & white, compartmentalized, or easily defined at all. It is gray, imprecise, and full of variability - the stuff that keeps you awake at night, I'm sure.

We've had this discussion before, and you flew off the handle at the suggestion that you couldn't handle reality. Well you can't. It's the sign of a small-minded person, one who has to have everything in little boxes, because looking outside the box is too disturbing. Well I've got a bit of news for you: it's those who can think outside the boxes that make a difference in the world. Those who can't are followers. I'm sure you've heard this before, probably many times. And each time you've violently lashed out before crawling deeper inside your little box, your narrow stats, and your self-serving stats. Kind of like a hermit crab, lil't.

Well good luck with that.

[E-Stat]

Perhaps the internet will become like cable and be sold in packages.
The universal nature of the 'Net is such that it cannot be *bundled* like entertainment packages nor would I want to be required to sign up for every new web based service or site. In a sense, you already purchase "packages" in two ways. While most content is free, some require fees. For example, if you want streaming movies, you must pay to be a member of a service like Netflix. Access speed pretty much determines what kind of content you can support. You can choose from a variety of speeds ranging from 56kbps dialup to 24Mbps fiber based broadband.

rw

[nightflier]

Wooch, while you and I are not in agreement over this, I respect the fact that you present arguments without insulting, and I am truly sorry that I mistook you for lil't. With that in mind, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your perspective on a number of points you brought up.


No, it's simply illustrative of the absurdity of your passing off anecdotes as general trends.

We've had this difference of opinion before. If observations are not relevant, than I suppose that a good 3/4 of the posts on this whole site are irrelevant, too? Much of what is discussed here is based on observations. Would you dismiss it all? If so, than why have the site at all?

By the same token, isn't the evidence you and lil't present all 3rd-party information? Actually, it could very well be 4th, 5th, nth party information - who knows how much it's been massaged for a specific purpose and audience? Fact is, anyone can find something on the internet that agrees with their point of view. We all know that the web is full of self-serving experts, so who do we believe? I've already pointed out that many of the stats you've presented from supposedly impartial publications, still have a purpose and a mission that is ultimately to sell product. Since we are often contrasting this to various forms of free content, wouldn't it stand to reason that they would be at odds? It's kind of like watching FoxNews and expecting actual news.

As a matter of fact, isn't observational content really much more relevant? After all, it's 2nd-hand information. Could it not have more relevance than you're willing to admit, if you'd just for a moment consider that there are other points of view? Now I'm not suggesting that 3rd-party info from research organizations ought to be dismissed entirely, either, but I am saying that it is not a complete picture. I've said this many times before, please consider it.


How often do people ride airplanes compared to daily commute trips?

Look, lil't said that there was no type of commuting long enough that existed for people to have a need for watching full length movies. Again, he was wrong. Airplane and train travel often do take longer than a movie. My argument is not about how much this compares to viewing video on large screens, it's about the fact that the occurrence is increasing much faster than in any other market sector for video.


Most public transit trips ARE too short for watching full length movies. Or is that news to you?

About as much as the pause button is to you? A movie doesn't have to be watched in its entirety in one sitting. What you're also forgetting is that someone who purchases a small screen to view video on a plane will likely also use it on a train or in a car, and visa-versa.


And again, the iPad is not a cell phone, and all of your backpeddling conflation doesn't change that.

Give me a break on this already. The iPad is just a large iPod, and with cellular, it's a large iPhone. What runs on one will run on the other. I'm not back peddling at all. Are you really going to tell me that a video app that runs on the iPhone won't run on the iPad? If so, you need to read up on the platform. If Netflix is offering it on one, that means it will run just fine on the other. Apple is counting on that to increase market share for both and has made every effort to make this easier.


You've stated repeatedly that small screens are taking away from TV viewing. I've asked for evidence, and you haven't provided any of it. Maybe that's why you're now backpeddling and avoiding the subject of TV viewing. I've said many times that adoption of online and network video is widespread, but the duration is short and it has not displaced TV viewing.

You're reaching and I'm certainly not backpedaling. I'm saying that video on small screens is growing extremely fast. I am not talking about TV viewing on large screens nor is that relevant. The fact that CBS, ESPN and others are even interested in offering both free and subscription based services for the iPad should be an indication that this market is heating up. From there it will be a small leap to the iPhone/iPod because they have exactly the same OS and programming platform.

Moreover, this is just for real-time viewing (streaming), which is only a portion of what I am talking about. Pre-downloaded video use is widespread on small devices, and with NetFlix signing on, it's clear that this is something they are taking very seriously. I don't believe it will be much longer until one NetFlix subscription account will be usable on both the large screen and the small screen. It will get one step closer to people actually being able to have the freedom to watch their own content on any device in the house, something the media moguls, and your buddy lil't, are probably not looking forward to.


You don't know or care about Hulu because its business losses undermine your entire argument about web video.

How so?

Anyhow, if Hulu wants to play video on the iPad, then more power to them. But it's clear the media moguls will do everything in their power to prevent that because they won't be able to control content and force the consumer to sit through commercials for the same profit margins as they can on computers (see below).


Show me any instance where I said that Netflix wouldn't sign on with the iPad.

That was directed at lil't.


And you base everything on your techie friends, who may or may not actually have access to that information. Google can "absorb" the losses, but that's hardly assurance that web video is the money making machine that you claim that it is.

Boy you sure have a dim view of "techies." I will ignore your slur, and presume you are talking about the folks at Google.

While this may come as a shock to you, the folks at Google have a much more universal view about technology. Just as they look at revenue across all their technologies, they also see the Internet that way. Maybe this is why you're not understanding the "techies." It's not just about immediate revenue, it's also about residual revenue and economies of much larger scales than just one market sector. A penny of revenue multiplied over millions of instances over a long period of time makes a lot more sense than a big fat check up front. More importantly, it creates stability and growth that is much more reliable and is also much easier for more people everywhere to partake in.

Let me try to explain it a different way. There's a lot of folks who say that police/fire departments, schools, Medicare, hospitals, roads, public transportation, etc., should all be run at a profit or else not done at all. This is the typical rhetoric that says if it doesn't make a profit, get rid of it, and if it doesn't exist yet, don't build it. The problem with this point of view is that it fails to consider the related benefits: public schools educate tomorrow's leaders, hospitals keep diseases in check, public transportation gets people to work on time, a police presence makes commerce safe, etc. Those are residual benefits that actually are worth far more to a healthy society than any immediate profitability. Even if not profitable, the expense is still far less than the residual benefits. This is why most savvy businesses and the people who run them don't oppose these, but actually support them.

Google looks at the Internet, the Search Engine, and yes, even YouTube & online video who's marginal profits mean very little to the likes of lil't, as being part of a bigger goal. Those little marginal profits, "multiplied over millions of instances over a long period of time make a lot more sense than a big fat check up front. More importantly, it creates stability and growth that is much more reliable that is also much easier for more people everywhere to partake in." It is this reality that slips through the cracks when all one focuses on is the black & white, the raw sales figures alone, and the stale and past statistics that leave so much of the full picture hidden.

In the end, that lack of vision, that inability to see the potential in technologies, and only cowering back to what is familiar, does nothing more than lead to societal stagnation. I happen to have a lot more faith in those people who do see the bigger picture, rather than those who are transfixed and immobilized by small impediments. Deer in the headlights get run over, remember? So yes, I place a lot of faith in my "techie" friends. They've been pretty good to me and I've benefited a great deal from listening to them. You can continue to downplay Google and it's ideas, but their employees are laughing all the way to the bank about your dismissive suggestions.

Now are you really going to tell us that Google, Netflix, CBS, ESPN, and all the bright minds that work to make them great know less about this than your buddy, lil't (who's already being marginalized by his own company because of his loony views)?

Well good luck with that.


Who do you think is providing that Wi-Fi signal? Do you really think that an "ISP" or "service provider" refers solely to cellular signals? If you can view content on the ESPN360 site at your home or office, you're already paying for it because the carriage fee has been built into your service charges.

I never said they are only serving cellular? Where did you get that? What's your point, anyhow?


This has nothing to do with what I'd "rather" or "like to" see happen. My points simply indicate what's going on with the media discussions. It's all nothing more than a high stakes chess match.

Why don't you enlighten me with your chess wizardry, because I really don't know where you're going with this.


You keep thinking that the ad-sponsored model will work for online video. Well, if it was, why is there so much talk now about walling off the content and going to a "TV everywhere" subscription model? ESPN and NBC are just the tip of the iceburg. Cable/satellite penetration is over 80%, so going to this model would not have any impact on existing subscribers at all, since they would have access to online content as part of their cable/satellite subscription.

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. There will be room for both ad-supported and subscription-based services. But the fact remains that the Internet culture that this video is going to have to get along with, is used to getting stuff for free and to select just what they want. In that environment the closed, high-price model of subscription services is likely to be a lot less popular than the ad-supported one. If you also consider that subscription-based services also advertise to screw the customers into viewing ads, it should be obvious that the subscription fee will be an even greater irritant to the online community.

But what is most distasteful to the online community is the locked down selection of the subscription-based model. Online there are dozens if not hundreds of alternative ways to spend one's time. People are used to selecting just what they want to see. Only if the subscription model gives them that freedom will people take to it readily, but this flies in the face of the wishes of Hollywood that wants to monetize every second of video it can at a maximum profit. There is a conflict of interests there that has yet to play out.


With ESPN360, consumers don't even know about the carriage fees, since it's not itemized on their bills. However, many customers do care when they try to view ESPN360 site content and the alert message pops up that the video feed is blocked because their ISP has not signed on. ESPN knows that some customers can and will change ISPs in order to access their content. That's why most of the major ISPs, except Time Warner Cable, have agreed to ESPN's carriage fee demands. It has nothing to do with whether I think this is good or bad. It's happening, simple as that.

The only reason this is so is because ESPN is a monopoly. More to the point, this situation is most egregious in the US, but on a global Internet, this isn't necessarily so. Considering small-screen video appears to be more prevalent abroad, ESPN's example may not be illustrative enough for the purposes of our discussion here.


Because it is insignificant and irrelevant in relative terms. 7 minutes per day for mobile and computer video viewing versus 5+ hours per day spent watching TVs is a wipeout. Until the trends start showing mobile and online video usage actually accounting for significant minutes, it's nothing more than the usual rounds of hype coming from the tech press.

Again, it's not about the amount of time spent watching the video, it's about the growth of this technology. Large screen viewing is much more stagnant, and even if fads like 3D have given it a little boost, it will not see the kinds of growth that video on small screens is seeing. I'm a lot more excited about things that grow fast and that show potential for the future, but YMMV.


4% of retail is NOT significant because much of the growth in e-commerce has been at the expense of other forms of remote retailing (i.e., print catalogs, phone-based mail order, network marketing, non-internet direct-to-consumer sales, etc.). $204 billion might seem like a big number until you compare that with the $404 billion that Walmart ALONE took in last year. Physical B&M stores, which techies have been writing doomsday stories about for more than a decade, still control 90+% of the retail market. Like I said, this seems to always surprise techies who bought into the hype that online retailing has already taken over.

Boy you sure are full of hyperbole. I never said anything about the doom days of B&M stores, now did I? Frankly I don't know many "techies" who care all that much about that either. Anyhow, it's not what this discussion is about, it's peripheral. $204B isn't small potatoes. I happen to be making a living on a small piece of it, just like thousands of other people, so I'd say it suits me just fine. More importantly, I expect that $204B to continue to grow year after year. Can Walmart or BestBuy make that claim? Anyhow, it's not like they aren't online either - they certainly are hedging their bets too. Honestly, Wooch, would you rather buy 100 shares of BestBuy or Cisco right now?


Obviously, you don't want to talk about revenues from regular TV viewing because it only reinforces just how far mobile and online video have to go before they can even register as a statistical blip in overall revenue.

For the umptieth time, it's not about comparing revenue. Why does online video have to reach any such goal? If online video doubles in market share, it will be much more significant than if TV maintains it current levels. Why can't you understand that? Those pennies multiplied by millions over time mean a whole lot more than stagnating TV revenues, whether you want to admit it or not.


Everything I said points to why the video and audio industries have gone in completely different directions. Pointing to the audio side and claiming that's exactly what will happen with video, despite ample evidence that consumers utilize both technologies very differently, is why you're not making any sense.

Ample evidence? Like what? Care to give us some?

On the other hand, if video on small screens does double, like my information tells me it will, then I'm also pretty confident that it will be of lower quality than HD+surround. I expect the companies to offer downloadable content in various formats, just like they do now for movie previews because of bandwidth constraints and the fact that small screens aren't optimized for HD+surround. When that happens are you going to come here and acknowledge that you were wrong?


Fact is that 65% of music sold remains in the CD format.

Again, only looking at sales and completely ignoring the total of what is downloaded. This obviously doesn't consider free content and piracy.


Nope, it's about what will generate the greatest stream of revenues. Quantity alone won't get you there if it can't replace the revenues that higher margin products like Blu-ray and DVDs generate. Consumers seem to care quite a bit about quality. Why else would they buy HDTVs and subscribe to HD services and buy Blu-ray players?

I'm not denying that BR sales are doing well. Nevertheless, this is temporary. The biggest problem with disks is that they can't easily be transported. I certainly don't see anyone sitting on a plane or bus with a stack of BR disks and a portable BR player. For better or worse, the future is digital.

Hey don't blame me, I still listen to records and collect movies on disk, but I'm not silly enough to think that this will be anything but a niche in the near future.


I've said repeatedly that online video usage is high, but the actual viewing time is low. Those are the facts. I acknowledge those. What I don't acknowledge is baseless prognostication that comes from ideologically blindered and wishful thinking.

This isn't ideology, my friend. My company has been doing quite well in this "down" economy because it invests in technologies it believes will grow. So far video on small screens has been very big for us, and we're estimating that this is just the beginning.

Look I don't give a flying hoot if you decide to continue downplaying what I'm pointing out. I've given you and lil't a lot of info about an industry I am actively involved in. Whether you choose to listen is up to you. I don't really care to debate it point for point and I care even less about your 3rd+ party sources. Anyone can find evidence on the internet to prove just their point of view. What I can tell you is that we've been doing extremely well with the growth of video on small screens. If it's just a smidgen of the whole video market, then so be it, what do I care? I'm not hurting for thinking it's a profitable technology, and judging by the number of contracts we have in our backlog, neither are my "techie" friends.

Again, my apologies about thinking you were someone else.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Somebody does not know when to hold it, when to fold it, and when to run. I have never seen a person that is such a glutton for punishment, and just keeps rambling on and on down the wrong highway over and over again. It is just amazing the level of ignorance displayed by the nightdummy. Nightfool, don't waste your time posting on this subject. Go to the store and buy a clue pleeeeese!!!! I'll even give you my credit card.

[nightflier]

Funny from someone who contradicts himself left & right depending on what thread he's on (I shall quote, typos & all, so that no one claims this is coming from "anecdotal sources," either).

Remember when we had a big debate about downloads and VOD and you said that it didn't have a future (everything from the internet not having the bandwidth to no customer demand)? Well apparently you've wizened up to reality:

"Then there is digital rental downloads and VOD which is also growing, and as other companies come into the market may also become the dominate way folks rent movies."

It may become "the dominate way folks rent movies???" Oh no he di'nt! Please, don't let him go down like dat. Oh yes he did! I almost spit up my drink when I read that, but there it is, just as you wrote it. But wait, there's more (I said in my most earnest John Stewart impersonation)....

"Internet connected television and streaming devices are fueling this push."

Streaming devices? But, but ... that's li't talking techy tack to the world... Can someone call Satan and ask him if it's getting a bit chilly in hell? If I remember right, you said those where another techy niche? But now they are fueling the push? Nice.

And when I suggested that the studios were overcharging and gouging the customers, you were all over me like a famished Wile E. Coyote after Roadrunner with your defense of your honorable studios. Well then why do you feel the need to ahem, mention that the studios should: "not try and exploit the market for higher revenues." Could it be that maybe, just maybe, the studios, even, heaven forbid & hide your children, D...DD... Disney???? are just a pack of corporate money-grubbing, union-busting, consumer-gouging, corporate Machiavellians? Who would have thunk it?

Yeah, I think these statements are indicative of some serious schizophrenia don't you? Or is it just Cheney-esque selective memory? Maybe you have that disease that afflicts all people who climb too far up the corporate ladder: you can't be wrong simply because you are there. And as they all do once the tide changes, you'll just use more hyperbole and platitudes to weasel out of the corner you've painted yourself into. Yeah, from what I've read of your other posts, that's what's happening here and when someone calls you on it, you either claim that you can't possibly be wrong because of your status or you'll flood the post with unending qualifiers until you can wiggle free (remember that threat where E-Stat called you on a claim about your amps?) And if all that fails, than your good friend Wooch will come an bail you out, lol. In the end you're just a small, passive-aggressive little back-peddling imp with a silly big name and a Napoleon complex.

So instead of that last post which really says nothing useful for the discussion, why don't you address my points? The reality about video on small screens is that the market is exploding much faster than the market for large TVs, the box-office, or your current fav, 3D, and you simply won't acknowledge it. Well, I'm sure you will later, when it's so obvious that you'll just have to. But you will never admit you said anything inconsistent or false, even when others point it out in black and white. Which leads to my other question: why are you here? It certainly isn't helping the discussion.

I really wonder, what is your obsession with challenging any techy perspective? Did you get beat up by the computer geeks when you were in junior high? I mean I really wonder what your inexplicable loathing of the computer industry is all about. Is it maybe that when you blunder into their forums you are so outgunned that you are usually sent packing with your tail between your legs? Yeah, I think that's the reason. Or is it simply because I said it? If so, you are building me up way too much. Funny since your apparent goal is to tear me apart at every turn. Funny, even that is a contradiction. You really are making my case with each subsequent post. Ironic really, and funny, and ultimately.... pretty sad.

Go on with your bad self then, Sir Terry the Terribly Small, aka lil't. I bet you drive a hummer too.... No? Well I'm sure it's really big, though - after all, it has to carry so much attitude.

[3LB]

Hey Nightflier

Could you provide links to the threads where you say *Signore Terrino il'Terribile* (Italian) contradicts himself? or maybe suggests some search words?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*in the future I'll just shorten that to Sir TiT

[nightflier]

Of course. The quotes are from this thread:

Netflix agrees to 28-day delay for Fox, Universal movies (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=33737)

And then I referenced this thread:

Pinging Sir T (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=32999)

As well as a number of others that degenerated into a cacophony because lil't flew off the handle. Really, there are too many of those to list.


in the future I'll just shorten that to Sir TiT

Just make sure there's no tattoo on it, or you'll be in for one heck of a fight, lol.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Obviously either nightstupid can't read, or cannot understand english very well. I never said that VOD and downloads do not have a future, and before you continuing lying, you need to prove that statement. I said that VOD and downloading will not supplant the disc for years to come because A) the infrastructure isn't there, and B) the buying habits of consumers do not change over night) and c) there still is not a solution for storing large amounts of movies as servers are way too expensive for the average consumer. I did say that downloading will be the future for rentals, but not purchases and the facts support that. So nightstupid, you need to get your words straight once again, and stop the lying and twisting of words to make your point..

Here is evidence of what I have said in the past.

There is one thing you just do not get, the American public is not ready for downloads to replace disc. The only thing downloads will effect is renting, and that is basically it. As far as I can see nobody is ready to trust their movie collection on a hard drive that can be corrupted and hacked, potentially ruining their library. post#11

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=25630&highlight=Video+rental+downloading

I said this

VOD and Downloading are going to effect the rental market profoundly, it is not going to effect the disc collector for a long time until it can match the quality and performance of disc, is ownable and moveable like a disc is. post #14

And this

The only model that VOD and downloads will take over from is renting. Everyone knows thispost #30

And this

I see downloading as impacting the rental market, that is logical. But sale through via downloading is not happening now, and it will not happen for quite a while. There is no money in it. Its not like music downloads at all. post 73


So nightstupid, I have found statements I have said going back to 2008 that support what I state here. Based on that, you have a deep seeded propensity to lie like a dog to prove your point, and your ability to understand english is profoundly crippled.

As far as addressing your other points, I am not going to bother. You are not worth the debate because you lie too much. I am not going to spend my precious online time arguing with a idiot.