Video Watch
December 22, 2006
12.22.06: Screen shots from P2P TV Venice Project
Om has screen shots from the still pre-beta Venice Project, a P2P TV start-up created by Skype founders Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis.
In an interview with Om in October, Friis explained:
Television is the most powerful mass medium, and we are trying to do is marry the best of television with the best of internet. What people love about the television is the story telling. What people don’t like is television that is locked in linear time. We want to try and preserve the best bits of television, and discard bits people don’t care for.
People like the freedom of choice and like freedom from choice. For example, channels are good, because they define the content. Today, the channels are locked in legacy infrastructure, but on broadband the channels are not locked in time.
That’s what the Venice Project is doing. What we have done is created a streaming P2P platform for television. This is a platform, which is good for content owners, for advertisers and of course the viewers. Since there are no borders on the Internet, this is a global platform. Sometimes we think content owners have legal reasons to restrict content locally and the technology allows them to do that.
It's hard to tell about the quality based on the screen shots. We'll take Om's word for it:
The visuals on a Lenovo T60 with a 15.2-inch screen were stunning and crisp. The streams came through without a problem and there was very little jitter. Still, no point hooking it up to a big screen TV… just yet! There isn’t LIVE TV content on the service right now and most of what is there consists of meager offerings streaming off the Venice Project servers. So you can’t truly judge how good this service will be when it comes to “live” broadcasts just yet.
But, Om points out there is a content problem.
Unlike Skype which had “forced viral distribution” built into its business model, this one needs content… a lot of quality content. Large media companies, globally, would like to get their pound of flesh from the Venice Project (now that the Skype boys are all rich, they can pay right!). The technology certainly works, and for content providers - say the Disney and Viacoms of the world - this is a pretty good thing. It frees them up from the carriage providers and gives them a global audience.
So is this a YouTube-killer, as Gizmodo's Jason Chen has it?
Do people care how the data is getting from the host to them? No. That's exactly why peer to peer will definitely win over a centralized, YouTube approach. By cutting down on bandwidth costs (they're mostly from the users), the Venice Project can have much higher quality video. Just like with Skype, what do people care that their call or video is going through Zimbabwe before getting to them? The only thing that's important is that the quality is there, and the content is there. All that the Venice Project needs now is content.
December 22, 2006 |
Permalink | Comment on this post
| Tag: Video Watch
View blog reactions | RSS Feed | Subscribe to daily SVW Newsletter!
Comments
Earn Extra Money on Jellyfish pioneers a new type of online business model
The business model adapted by JellyFish seems to be unique in the field of shopping portals but this kind of practice of rebate have been in practice for long time by other kind of website owners.
Tom Foremski on 10 Basic Digital Publishing Skills Journalists/Anyone Should Know...
Yes, you can change the video size to whatever you'd like. Just take a look at the embedd code.
Cog on 10 Basic Digital Publishing Skills Journalists/Anyone Should Know...
I think I would pass almost all of them, but how do you resize a youtube or other embedded video to fit a web page's size?
I know you have to keep the dimensions proportional, but can you just change the height and width, or is there something else you have to follow?
Mike on Startups In LA... Building The West Coast Corridor Of Innovation - 1400 miles Long
There is no place like the West Coast for innovation
Sandy Kotch on Startups In LA... Building The West Coast Corridor Of Innovation - 1400 miles Long
I love the feeling of innovation for 1400 miles- that is the West Coast! Having moved from San Francisco to Santa Monica in the late 90s and being in start-up modes with companies for a majority of that time, it is great to confirm my true feelings all along - that we are in the innovative crux: California! Couldn't agree more that the creative energy in LA is bound to drive the technology here, it is a great place to be - although often expensive to do business!
Tom Foremski on Social Media Is Not About Conversations... It's About Something Much More Amazing
David: I don't think the problem is finding a new term for a stilted conversation, but that 'conversation' is misleading when applied to social media because it's about something that is much more exciting and amazing. Conversation is a red herring when it comes to understanding this next phase of the Internet...
David Shantz on Social Media Is Not About Conversations... It's About Something Much More Amazing
I beleive that the nomenclatures may be what's failing us.
None of our current lexicon really fits exactly:
A CONVERSATION is really an exchange of ideas, with each response being dependant on the other and with the overall context...
A DISCOURSE is more of a formal debate.
PUBLICATION is as you say, to make content available publicly (but seems not to have enough emphasis on exhange)
Perhaps we need a new word.
"Publicly sharing an idea that is
Doug Millison on Social Media Is Not About Conversations... It's About Something Much More Amazing
I enjoyed reading this. McLuhan is worth re-reading, especially his book THE MECHANICAL BRIDE. Digital media are bringing us back to something like the manuscript era, where readers were usually writers who compiled their own books. Now we're creating & compiling our own "books" -- sometimes we call them "blogs" -- by mixing text & image & sound/music online. My "prose+comics scrapbook" format makes this explicit & ushers in a new, interactive scribal epoque, as we let readers become co-cr
Bud Gibson on Social Media Is Not About Conversations... It's About Something Much More Amazing
I agree with your bounds on what constitutes non-conversation, but somewhere in between is conversation. Ten to fifteen comments is often quite interactive. There are also side conversations that can happen in those large comment streams you mention. I've particularly seen this in some buzz threads.
Another small point of contention: you're using a term, publishing, which is increasingly becoming archaic. I tend to think of it as having been replaced by three distinct activities:
Seth Grimes on Social Media Is Not About Conversations... It's About Something Much More Amazing
Personally, I think "conversation" works quite nicely, but I'd guess I'd define "conversation" more expansively than you do. Actually, I kind of like the WordNet definition: "the use of speech for informal exchange of views or ideas or information etc." (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conversation), which fits what we're doing on/with social media.
In any case, I wouldn't get hung up on conversation/publication. Isn't the point that social media supports both back-and-f
Dave Kellogg on Social Media Is Not About Conversations... It's About Something Much More Amazing
I love the McLuhan quote.
If you read the comment streams on blogs, it's usually not a conversation.
It's usually what an old boss of mine used to call "parallel independent conversations" which is very much in line with the notion of two-way publishing.
Chris Dymond on Social Media Is Not About Conversations... It's About Something Much More Amazing
Question for me is: is it sufficient and to the greatest benefit for legal frameworks to simply consider social media as publishing, or should they adapt to consider a new category - something like a 'permanent conversation'?
In other words should it hold people accountable in the same way it does when the act of publishing and hence the motivations of the publisher are clear? Seems to me that the normative effect of maintaining that legal stance will be to force a change in behaviou
Andrew on Farmville valued $1B More Than Twitter By The Smart Money
The Microsoft deal with Facebook included an advertising deal--the $240M was for a share of the company and for the ad deal.
Thus, saying they bought at a valuation of $15B is significantly inaccurate.
Tom Foremski on Tech Giants Struggle With Copy And Paste...
George, sarcasm sometimes gets lost in translation, my apologies.
Daphne on Analysis: Could $GOOG Face Problems Outside Of China For Its Opposition To Chinese Government?
The Chinese governement has this stigma attached to it, basically don't mess with them. If google is mad enough to take them on, I wouldn't put it past them buying google and sacking the moron who made the decision.
George on Tech Giants Struggle With Copy And Paste...
And that significant lead will result from...adding something Apple has already added?
And that make sense to you?
Steve "@PodcastSteve" Lubetkin on Dirty Little Secrets: Social Media Is Terrible At Promoting Products
Tom, you and I are of the same mind on this. I am so tired of reading blogs or listening to podcasts or watching video embeds about social media people using social media to talk about social media. I really want to hear about specific business uses of social media. As I've said frequently, we need to remember that these tools are just communications channels, and we'll all be better off when we reach that day when it will sound really silly to hear a news headline like "Tom Foremski used Twi
Tom Nocera on Analysis: Financial Times Says GOOG Has Detailed Plans To Close China Search
An excellent analysis, Tom Foremski. I think there could be a great long term benefit for Google by its foray into China. By the timing of its very prominent presence there, coming during the great boom in Internet usage and awareness, Google's retreat, may become a kind of catalyst in the long term memories of tech savvy Chinese...the leaders of tomorrow. I forecast a triumphant return for Google one day, and it will be without the curse of censorship which only helps governments to contro
Jonathan Mendez on Why Ad Networks And Exchanges Will Never Help Publishers
Great post. I believe publishers can have advertising supported businesses. In fact I don't think that's debatable. First though they need better tools to leverage their audience data and their own ad matching systems. Essentially they need to build a new improved display channel. New pub controlled networks could then emerge that would crush the performance of what exists today. Then all the margin eating middle men would vanish and both ends of the transaction get yet more value from the m
Tom Foremski on Is the Future Of News Dependent On The Generosity Of Billionaire Philanthropists?
Eric, What's wrong with making a reasonable profit as a news organization? I agree with you that there is a race to the bottom going on because the econopmics of online news continue to worsen.
At some point, we have to figure out how to reward news organizations doing a good job otherwise we are in serious trouble as a society. That's what I would like to see Mr Hellman's money go towards -- figuring out a solution to one of the most difficult problems we have.
There's not