Slashdot Mirror
Roger McNamee On Video on the Internet
plasticmillion writes "Roger McNamee, venture capitalist and author of The New Normal has just posted the third part of a fascinating series on his blog entitled "Video on the Internet". Here are parts one and two. His basic premise is that media companies are trying to treat the internet as a normal distribution channel like broadcast or DVD, but they need to learn that there are new rules to this game if they are to avoid the errors committed by the music industry. The user comments are also a must read, with luminaries like Marc Andreessen chiming in with their insights."
They've got that right. The bottleneck is still bandwidth into the home, but as that continues to improve, expect little grassroots content to pop-up all over the place. Of course the pr0n industry will obviously be an early adopter, but imagine being able to go out with a video camera with your friends and do your own TV shows, broadcast the local s Jr league soccer match or even your HS football games. Even ambitious people could do up their own Star-Trek shows. Those which demonstrate real promise could probably sell advertising or subcriptions or even sell out, if they have a mind to. Consider how low budget you could do your own Dr. Who.
I think television is already losing to the internet, what'll it look like as the barriers come down to hosting your own shows? Interactive, even.
'i don't like what he said, mod him down, enough negative points and it'll launch a rotton tomato at him!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
no one wants to see some random local little league game or an amatureish star-trek ripoff. sure, it may be fun for about 3 minutes, but the novelty wears off really fast.
I would love to see TV stations offering their programs over the Internet. I'd even pay for it -- probably a higher rate for recent shows, with discounts if I buy an entire season at once, for example.
I guess a lot of people think that, but my reason's a little different. I'm an American, but most of the TV I watch is in Japanese. It's very hard to get Japanese TV in the U.S., and for most shows there's no way to do it without breaking copyright laws. If I had a legal way of getting shows from other countries, I would be willing to pay a premium for this.
For me, it's not a question of convenience, it's a question of being able to do legally that which I currently cannot.
Acius the unfamous
The race to aggregate comercial media has already begun: www.gofish.com -Alec
..the /. effect his video won't be on the internet for long.
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
Since leaving Netscape Andreessen hasn't exactly appeared luminary to me. For example, he was one of the people who were of the opinion that Mozilla would never matter. He only changed his tone when everybody was talking about the Mozilla revolution...
The technology is available now for cheaply producing a reasonably good internet show. Good video cameras are cheap, powerful editing computers are cheap, and there is plenty of open source software out there for making it all come together. The main bottleneck was always that dialup connection your non-geek neighbors had and their lack of internet awareness. But now that grandma is surfing the net instead of watching TV, and broadband is getting broader; how long will it be till "cable access" is obsolete and everyone just posts their shows as .torrent links to a community bulliten board/wiki/content site?
.mp3 music and meeting minutes, common application installers (firefox, openoffice), among other things available on many of the nodes for local distribution (not to metion being fast downloads as you don't have to go over the slower internet backhaul for the content).
Actually this is allready being done on a small scale in some networks. The Portland, Oregon Personal Teclo Project http://www.personaltelco.com/ offers free community wireless internet access and also has local content including news,
From TFA-
Akimbo intends to support all video content on the web. By this I think they mean all "legitimate" content, but time will tell.
What do they plan on doing to stop the illegitimate content from immmediately flooding the service and causing organizations (like the MPAA) to condemn it as a distributor of illegal files?
I, for one, welcome our new karma-whore sig writing overlords
Dear People at Gofish.com,
What the fuck to you offer?
You need a 1-2 line description of your company on the top page of your site.
I shoudn't have to click on "about" to find out what your company does.
http://www.starwreck.com/ Very high quality home brew show made for very little money. There are also the "new adventures" of star trek. There are also 400 user "tv channels" on winamp. --- Imagine this... TV station has a Bit Torrent like distribution program (so it scales up as users increase). You have to have a current sub to use the program (server validated like everquest). Voila- internet based cable. I have a 5mb connection now - that will easily support real time video. Even with normal torrents I can download an episode of monk in just over an hour.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Andreesen is a "luminary"? Maybe to venture capitalists, especially the clueless lemmings among them. But to anyone else in the know, he's just a one-hit wonder, who jumped the shark in 1993 when he invented (appropriated) the HTML tag. Since then, he had a flare as Netscape spokesmodel, while Jim Clark and an army of optioned programmers did all the heavy lifting. He's been nobody for years, and his tag is one of the worst hacks HTML inflicted on the Net. Andreesen is like a barium enema, a "luminous" tracer that radiates his promoters' ignorance and blind brand loyalty.
--
make install -not war
I still say that there needs to be a system where once you purchase it you can keep it. Wether that would be buring say a physical DVD or what ever comes next or the ablity to redownload and have some kind of key to reunlock it again.
Again I have to use Apple as an example. Two years ago I bought QuickTime pro. Well two logic boards and system wipes later, I can go into my account and get my access key online.
I am not against DRM so long as there is a balance. No matter what your view on the media industry is, I respect the ideas of copyrights.
Why? I work in the industry in a small company that produces 3D FX for smaller video producers using Lightwave 3D and other high price software. I have seen people try entering the market with pirated software and once they are discovered blacklisted. Why? Lightwave is about $1600 a seat. We pay for it. I didn't quite understand what people meant by "piracy hurts" until I started working in the industry and it changed my mind a little.
Like I said, there has to be a fair balance and it will work...
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Streaming is not inefficient, it still transfers the same amount of information as nonstreaming. The problem does not lie in efficiency. Datagram networks (the internet) is notorious for bad streaming content because the packets can take different routes and because of network jitter. I agree that a tivo setup will dominate like he says, but that doesn't make streaming inefficient!
Want to learn about anything sexual? Check out the sex wiki:
I note that mcnamee admits that he actually owns a part of Akimbo indirectly. I wonder of Andreasson was PAID for his comments here....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Fat chance of that! They are still getting used to that "VHS and DVD thang." They hire actors and actresses for as much as $20,000,000 then whine that their movies cannot make a profit at $52,000,000 in average revenue. You don't have to be an accountant to realize that there are few thespians who are worth that much money to the public. Most of the time when people react to previews of cool looking movies, the actors and actresses are only one of many variables.
I'd like to make a bet with the CEOs of every major studio. Make only 10% of your "serious" movies each year with the big names and then do everything else with people that look really good coming out of acting school who have a passion for the job. Cut those movie tickets 50% in cost, and put just as much money into script writing, directing and special effects as the other 10%.
I bet that within a few years, those 90% will be significantly more profitable because people will be able to not only see a cool movie, but see it for as little as $2.50 for senior citizens and not even $4.00 for mattinee in most small to medium sized towns. People under 25, who are a major part of the market, have lots of disposable income and little responsibility right now, would be able to afford to easily go see several movies a week.
People are more likely to blow $3.00-$4.00 on a movie ticket on a whim than $8.00 which is what I pay in a town of not even $60,000 25% of which are college students. It'd give the movie studios an edge over illegal downloading because most people under 25, especially guys, wouldn't think any big deal of spending $6.00-$8.00 a few times a week on a date, but when it's say... $16-$20 before the food is factored in. My God. At that rate, a diamond is looking like a bargain by comparison...
And lastly, where is the direct purchasing online of cheap new DVDs? Why can't I go online to a studio's website and buy a few of their new, "non-special" releases for $10.00 each before shipping and handling? It costs them $1.00 tops to make the damn thing. Why aren't they biting at the chance to scoop up $9.00 of revenue, much of which will be pure profit and will go toward making customers like buying from them? That's the solution to piracy right there. $10.00 or under on all new regular releases and you'll sell a lot thanks to an economy of scale effect.
But then again, that'd require their CEOs to take a step outside of the ivory tower of corporate lobbying and grandstanding and want to do their jobs. Heaven forbid that they actually be really... daring. Heaven forbid they take a real risk that hurt the company badly, but that could finally end their piracy woes entirely.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Whattaya bet there will be ALL KINDS of huge industries lined up to stop that sort of set-up you describe?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Marc Andreesen is a luminary now?
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
My sister has lived in germany for the last 2 years. This kind of service would be great for her. Its a lot better than me sending her 15 dvds of tv a month
I've never understood the relative valuation of music versus visual content.
How many movies do you have any desire to view more than once? For me, it is maybe 5%, if that.
But how many CDs do you listen to over and over and over again?
The user comments are also a must read, with luminaries ... chiming in with their insights.
;)
That's one sentence you will never hear used to describe slashdot.
Historically, Hollywood has not only survived non-theatrical distribution formats such as TV, VCR, DVD, it has also benefited from them, and it will eventually figure out a way to use Internet as a distribution channel. With due respect to Mr. McNamee's convoluted theorem, I think Hollywood has no reason to fear these "gadgets of the month" like Tivo and Akimbo, and I base my observation on my 15-year experience of working in both movie studios and independent film industry. Allow me to explain.
Hollywood has a group of loyal friends, namely, local theater owners -- all these guys have to do is to find an air-conditioned place, a projection booth, and a nice concession stand, they can sell "good times" for less than $20 per person (parking and food included). The theater owners probably don't make a lot on ticket sales, but their profits from selling popcorns and soft drinks are significant. As long as there are teenagers dying to get out of the house, lovers who are looking for a dark place to smooch, and families that need some cheap entertainment to refuel after a hard day, people will go to the movies.
This weekend, a friend excitedly informed me that he had just gotten DSL and had been downloading movies from p2p sites, but when he said it took him "days" to download a DVD-quality movie, I knew my old coworkers at the movie studios got nothing to worry about their jobs.
"Streaming or caching?" Mr. McNamee posed the big philosophical question. To me, it is as profound as asking "paper or plastic?" at the supermarket. That is to say, it's not a big deal. Hollywood makes movies for people so they can get out of the house. Those who like to stay indoors and fret over "streaming or caching" will always have their Web forums to yak until the cows come home.
Sun and Fun
Hello, and welcome to 2005 - where a reasonably seeded movie can be had in under 24 hours.
The kind of genius that gave us Saturday Night Live, H2G2 radio plays then tv series, Dr. Who and Monty Python could never happen again without the guidance of the kind of brilliant people in charge of major media networks. It was probably for the best that Nickelodeon/Viacom canned John K. just as Ren & Stimpy were getting good, and all that sort of thing.
The world really does need more manufactured talent and less garage efforts. (/sarcasm)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'm often surprised to find that some of the most popular video shorts distributed are commercials. Some websites have commercials making up 50% of their content (it seems like boobies and skateboard accidents are the other 50%). There's a huge lesson here for content providers and distributors. People will willingly watch and trade commercials (commercials!) for products if they are simply well made and novel.
I noted that the book link is a link to amazon.com. Weren't these the same guys who we were all so against because of their obtaining (and subsequently defending) the ridiculous "one-click shopping" (read: "extensive use of cookies") patent?
I can understand amazon.com links on non-geek sites, but shouldn't a geek site know its audience better?
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
In these parts "New Normal" is code for new post 9/11 security procedures or more commonly the post SARs changes to hospitals and doctor's offices (restricted visitation, hand santizer everywhere and masks a plenty).
I think I'll write a business book and call it "Tsumani Cleanup"....
http://packetsniffers.org/ packetsniffers
http://www.binrev.com/hacktv/ hack tv
these are great computer shows that are made by normal people on comsumer grade computers.
and there are others like infonomicon and broken floppy that still need some work.
Theaters only do well with first-run movies. First-run movies are also very spotty in quality. People are starting to waidt for the DVD (the long lead times between a theatrical release and home video are down to mere weeks) so they don't get burned by high ticket prices (per viewer, no less!).
What makes the big bucks for theaters? Family movies. Get mom and dad and the two kids in there for The Incredibles, you make a bundle. But, wait: mom and dad are now waiting for the DVD and watching it at home. $20 for the DVD (or $3 for the rental), and the kids can watch it again and again.
Why is the theater relevant again? Only for purists.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Disclosure: one of the venture investors in Akimbo is Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB). KPCB is a business partner of Integral Capital Partners, a business I founded, but at which I no longer have a day-to-day role. I am an investor in the KPCB fund that owns Akimbo.
Cheap entertainment? Are you nuts? At $8.50 per person? And the vast majority of the material the studios market to my kids is absolutely unacceptable. I wouldn't let them see a lot of it at all, even if it was free.
Cheap entertainment would be under $5 per person. Otherwise I'm better off buying a DVD for $14.95.
We almost never go to the movies any more. It just costs too much.
Whenever I read about the promises of VOD or using the Internet for television type programming, I hear about the huge bandwidth necessary for full screen, VHS quality. It's just not necessary. In fact, full screen might be a detriment.
Computers are viewed differently than TV's. It's an immense difference. We're closer and we're not adverse to doing multiple tasks on the screen at once. Someone is going to have to step up to the plate with that realization and then VOD over an IP network will be reality.
After one game, I asked my wife if she'd be willing to pay for a live concert by an artist she really likes (Rick Springfield) at this smallish screen size, but with sharp video and good stereo audio? She said, "yes."
To me, this makes some events economically feasible that wouldn't make sense as free TV, basic cable or even pay-per-view. There are undoubtedly other applications, with similar niche audiences.
The current streaming technologies from Microsoft and Real and especially Macromedia Flash (quickly becoming the major player in streaming video) make it easy to integrate advertisements in many different ways, often without stopping or disturbing the actual desired content.
This is the 500 channel universe we've heard about. Except, it's really an infinite channel universe.
Of course, there's a question of whether there's enough bandwidth right now to handle it. The answer's probably no - but - there is a plethora of 'dark' fiber, waiting to be powered up. If video is the next killer app for computers, there will be plenty of incentive to unleash enough bandwidth to enable it.
I work for a local TV station, but I don't consider this our ruin. If we're smart and aggressive, we'll be able to sell the content we already produce, and specialized content that demands our localized expertise, in this new venue.
And not just TIVO either. It seems the PVR market in general isn't doing well, so somebody please explain it to me, becuase I just don't get it.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Consider the DVD player. Costs under $50. Buy it once, and throw it away if it breaks. No monthly charges. Made in China by cheap labor. Available everywhere. That's the winning business model.
people demand entertainment with relatively high production values...
While I agree that people's standards are somewhat higher when it comes to video - to me it seems that people demand entertainment with, well, entertainment!
Podcasters have no serious studio. Yet plenty of people listen to those.
And on video, are not some of the post popular video clips on the net the most poorly produced and shot things you have ever seen? Yet they are invariably funny and interesting to watch.
People are willing to put up with a lot if they enjoy the content.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Those who liken others to "barium enema"s are themselves assholes dripping barium.
Go back to your "wave of fortune riding" and try to avoid dripping more shit out of your mouth.
(smells bad enough around here already)
Thank you.
Hollywood makes movies for people so they can get out of the house. Those who like to stay indoors and fret over "streaming or caching" will always have their Web forums to yak until the cows come home.
I'm not in the industry, so I can't back this up with the same experience as you. However, I heard an interesting piece of information a while back. The reason why Disney puts out so many sequels straight to DVD is that it's a cash cow for them. Lion King 2, Shrek 2, and countless other sequels weren't released in theatres because it's not as profitable to do a theatrical release as it is to cater to people "who like to stay indoors", to busy families, and to those who like to collect DVDs for whatever reason. It's better for the shareholders to hook people on the first one and then skip the theatre entirely for the sequels.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
>>Podcasters have no serious studio. Yet plenty of people listen to those.
Yeah, and the vast majority of podcasts are terrible--absolute garbage. The only two podcasts I listen to anymore are "IT Converstations" (which basically just retransmits audio from IT conferences) and Leo Laporte's radio show (just a port of his on-air radio show). All of the amateur internet-only stuff is junk. Here is the typical podcast:
20-year-old college student: Hey. How's it going? I'm here with Shane.....So Shane, did you do anything this week?
Shane (19 year old college student): No, man, not really.
20 year old college student: Cool. Well, lets repeat some stuff we heard online, with aboslutely no insight or additional information to offer...