Cell phone video

[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?

[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.

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_b...-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]

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.

[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.