Slashdot Mirror
Google Video Store Announced
acid06 writes "Engadget and BusinessWeek covers Larry Page's talk at CES regarding the much anticipated Google Video Store. The rumours proved to be true and they're really going online with CBS to sell commercial-free episodes of their series. Deals with NBA, Sony BMG and Greencine.com were also announced." From the BusinessWeek article: "The video providers have the option of offering content on a download-to-own or download-to-rent basis. In a sign that content owners will likely pursue different approaches through Google Video, the National Basketball Association will sell broadcasts of its games one day after the event for $3.95. Meanwhile, public television staple Charlie Rose will post his interviews the day after a broadcast, allowing a free streaming for the first 24 hours then making it downloadable afterward for 99 cents each. Meanwhile, CBS is selling episodes of its popular 'CSI' and 'Survivor' series at the standard iTunes price of $1.99 per download."
Have you seen this?
http://pack.google.com/
Info here: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/
Busy day for Google.
anyone?
Since Sony BMG is involved I guess it's really "download-to-be-pwn3d"
This is a good plan. Now I can see all the video tutorials and documentaries. I think Google won't stop with the video. It's a good start
Will this be availible outside of the US too?
:/
I hope so, a lot of the good shows never make it over here while a most of the run of the mill sitcoms do..
Google Pack and now a Google Video Store?
Are they throwing away the "Don't Be Evil" slogan?
We now know the answer to the previous slash article:
If DVD Is Dead, What's Next?
google Video store!
liqbase
So Apple, and now google, have video offerings. Video blogs are popping up all over.... and microsoft is just getting around to launching a music store (that, by the way, isn't even open yet).
] I realize that Microsoft expects to be able to dominate by competing brutally on price, and by leveraging the xbox platform, but how much of a head start are they going to give Google?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Welcome to the REAL cable a-la-carte, where I don't even need a connection to watch my favorite shows, just download them for 2 bucks a pop. If you normally watch 5 or 6 shows with any regularity, over a full 22 episode season, that comes out to 264 bucks a year. How much are you paying for cable yearly?
People won't pay for things unless they have to, irrelavant of how one person may have higher moral standards, there are at least 100 for that one who think that, hell, people shouldn't have to pay for music unless they really like it.
I, personally, think that MP3 file-sharing should be legalized as a type of on-demand radio. Similar to radio or TV, people can browse and listen to the stuff they like, and if they really like it they can go out and buy CDs or Box Sets of their shows.
This is how it appears to me from a consumer standpoint, from the business standpoint, the plausibility of this happening is very small.
It's not like piracy is going to bankrupt any of these places anyways.
Oh yeah, for TV, people shouldn't have to pay per episode. I pay about as much for one of these episodes as I do for one entire channel on Satellite.
It's like charging 99 cents per article in a magazine. It doesn't work. Subscription based services are the way to go for this one.
Google entering the entertainment distribution business while Microsoft parts with MSNBC
The distinction is that google's is internet based.
-metric
There is a whole world out there, and I just hope that Google comes to the party and starts selling videos beyond American shores .
We're dying out here in Australia, our local content providers suck arse. They swabble over stations, muck about the times, cut shows mid season, cancel whole seasons, are usually up to 18 months behind the US in delivery. Its beyond contempt.
We are entering a brave new world in video delivery content, finally, a medium that puts the consumer in charge of the loungeroom. Lets only hope that offshore countries are also in for the ride.
that they're not going to be in Flash Video (FLV) format
You can download it off video.google.com, but it's a pain
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
(oblig. Save Arrested Development Post)
I can watch GTv though my Gbrowser on GOS on my GComputer while talking to my friends on Google Talk and Gmail. After I'm don't I can do my reports in GOffice!
DYWYPI?
Perhaps they are already in discussions with google?
It isn't clear what the resolution is. The big problem with iTMS is that their resolution sucks. I can't imagine paying for those videos.
TFA doesn't say anything about DRM on the videos you can buy. I quote:
6 4838423-wGEG4V5bN3Q0Pm7bvt0ceWXfYjQ_20060112.html? mod=blogs ):
ne of the more interesting aspects of the Video Store, however, is the fact that they're also making their non-copy-protected content available for download DRM-free encoded for the iPod and PSP (though there's also no word on what it is we're going to have to deal with in terms of DRM on purchased Google Video content).
According to Wall Street Journal ( http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1136438145
Some details of Google's online video service remain unclear, such as how much content owners might charge consumers to download their videos. Google last year had said it planned to allow content owners to charge for videos, but it hadn't activated that feature. Interest in delivering video over the Internet has surged since October, when Apple began offering downloads of popular TV shows through a partnership with Walt Disney Co. Google has developed its own digital-rights-management software to protect downloaded videos from piracy.
So Google is now creating their own DRM. And they have a partnership with Walt Disney. Anyone else feel a conflicting interest here? Yeah, business is business, but I really liked the "do no evil"-mantra. At least I liked Googles _taste_. Buying AOL of all companies AND creating DRM is not what I'd expect from Google.
On the other hand, Apple did it, and most people still like Apple. It's a sad world when the best we can do is hope for the lesser of all evils to win...
Cable for TV watching is a "nice to have". Cable for internet access is a the real reason I have it.
Question everything
Glad to see that, according to the BBC, unlike Apple, they're tackling both iPod Video and Sony PSP as mobile devices.
Surprised no one is complaining about the variable pricing. Now the greedy music/movie industry can rip us off with variable pricing and they now have a competitor to threaten Apple with. Hope things don't go that way!
-ItsME
...Linux support?
For a company that is internet based and uses Linux heavily on the backend, I'm kind of surprised they don't support Linux more in their product lines to give back something to the community that helped them start up.
I browsed through pack.google.com but didn't see any mention of a Linux offering now or in the future. I'd love to see Google Earth and Google Desktop on Linux, not to mention the video stuff.
Anyone heard anything about this?
They use an active x/firefox plugin, and don't tell you about it. (And funnily enough, MS is going to a stand alone windows update).
:)
http://pack.google.com/common_installer.js
they dont put it in the firefox directory either... its in the google updater directory. Granted, it doesnt do much work, but adding another 50K visual studio plugin to firefox is not good. the idea is good though, one stop updating of internet facing apps. bad implementation. also, the programs google pack installs STILL do their own update checks which is annoying. in fact, after installing google earth via google updater I ran it and it said there was an update available
and fix some of the things it's currently doing badly. A typical Froogle page consists of highly illegal HTML. One page I checked with the W3 validator (validator.w3.org) contained over 400 errors.
Worse, Google has started altering queries. Try searching for "rpgle setll" without the quotes. Google returns results containing "rpg", even though it's important that the "le" remain.
Google is getting too big too quickly and quality is suffering.
It was a mathematical inevitability, eventually one of the google rumors on slashdot would come true :P
I actually went browsing the iTunes video section, and it was sadly pretty bare. If these guys had a clue, they'd offer up twilight zone episodes; I'd blow my paycheck in a week. All in all, though, I'm pretty stoked.
From the article:
"Although Google's service allows content owners more pricing freedom, it isn't necessarily as liberating for users.
While all of videos downloaded through Apple can be transferred onto a portable player -- albeit only its own iPod -- for on-the-go viewing, that won't be true at Google's service."
bahhh. I'll pass.
The first season of Lost (24 episodes plus extras) lists for $60. That's $2.50 an episode. You can find it a lot of places for around $40. That drops down to $1.67. I guess people are willing to pay this for a show they liked, so are they willing to pay $2 to get the show right now? One issue I see is it's on network tv. It's free so why would I pay for it. When it comes out on dvd, people switch in their minds, that they're paying for a dvd, not to watch tv.
CSI and Lost are their big shows. So how much are people willing to pay for a middle of the pack show?
I know I really like tv downloads and the OnDemand stuff. There's nothing like being hooked on a show and being able to watch several episodes in a row. No more waiting a week to get your 20-40 mintes(w/o commercials) fix.
Most tv shows have a budget under a couple of million per episode. Most tv shows do not make a profit until they hit syndication, which usually requires around 100 episodes in the can.
TV show downloads have the potential to make first run TV shows profitable up front, no need for syndication. But pricing levels of $1 or $2 per show for non-niche shows are beyond reasonable.
Take a look at "Lost," one of the most expensive shows on TV today, they've been doing around 20M viewers per episode in the USA alone. If only 10% of those viewers go to pay-for-download that's $4M per episiode, which is already turning a profit never mind the commercial fees for the remaining 18M viewers still watching it over the air with commercials. At 20% of the audience or just 4M viewers, the revenue becomes $8M which is probably significantly more profitable than any show ever in the history of US broadcasting.
Thus these big-name, big-budget shows should tend to be priced closer to 20cents per episode if there was real competition. Similarly, the shows with smaller audiences often have much smaller budgets (for example an episode of anime usually costs $200K-$300K to produce) and should still be inline with pricing in the 15-30 cents/episode range.
Don't even get me started on video quality - itunes video is far too low resolution, I believe a pseudo-HD resolution of around 960x540 ought to be an absolute minimum considering that MPEG4/AVC1/H264 can do that reasonably well in about 500MB.
"Surprised no one is complaining about the variable pricing. Now the greedy music/movie industry can rip us off with variable pricing and they now have a competitor to threaten Apple with. Hope things don't go that way!"
Variable pricing makes sense. Why should a company like Apple or Google have the power to decide what a video or a song is worth? The content provider owns the material. That person has the exclusive right to charge what he thinks a song or video is worth. The ditributor only has the right to tack on his fee in addition to the content cost. Apple claiming that every song is worth $0.99 is the essentially price fixing. They're leveraging their monopoly in the online music distribution market to dictate the value of songs they didn't even create.
Vote for Pedro
Granted it's free and all (well, for 6 months anyways), still Norton Anti-Virus is practically the WORST anti-virus software on the market (corporately I had to replace it with AVG because Norton missed WAY too many viruses that even the free version of AVG found on 'NAV protected' computers). Detection of spyware, ditto goes for Ad-Aware. Both were fine products in their day, but both have been religated to collecting dust on a shelf as they fail miserably to meet current computing needs.
Back in the day, we called these sort of packages 'shovelware'.. shovel as much useless crap to make it seem more valuable. The only difference with this is the price tag is non-existant.
I'm not surprised. Larry and Sergey always seemed like the type of guys that would work in a video store.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
I'll stick with Usenet.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
First the Google Pack is a brilliant bit of marketing. My guess is the Google Desktop hasn't been the fastest installed bit of software ever devised even though it is an excellent edition for windows. Let's call it Mac OS X Spotlight for Windows. They can now slip it in by trading on the positive Google image, an image that is trusted by the public. Now that is smooth.
While some of the product choices are weak, partly because they needed something to round out the offering, in the long term this could be how Google influences the Windows environment directly. For example now that they employ the primary Gaim developer we can be sure that Trillian will eventually fall to the way side as Gaim becomes ready for prime time. Think about it. If enough people use the convenience and trust of Google to maintain a lot of the software they just want to work, Google can decide who wins and who loses. We can only hope they use this as a vehicle to promote open source projects when they are ready for the mainstream like firefox.
cbs programming sucks! so does realplayer! Why google would make these their favorites i don't know.
Comcast has their video on demand infrastructure in place. Free & pay movies & shows.
What's available?
The same old tv shows over again(no new shows put in), incomplete seasons of shows, z-grade movies, ie nothing anybody would want to watch.
If Google can get top-rate shows that people would actually want to watch(either just-aired or classic), more power to them. Comcast, even though they are a mega-corp, can't seem to get any decent programming on their VOD.
Day-old basketball for four bucks. Oh yeah, that'll be a million-seller.
This is why the price of production should be augmented by advertising. And there are several ways to do this, for instance, product placements and inline adverts such as "throbber" ads in the lower righthand corner.
dan (coupled with a reasonable download price and ad revenue, studios can cut out the networks altogether...)
[ think ]
Walmart does it yet again.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I wonder how much future that model has. I'd rather get a good PVR than pay for every episode. Plus I have the episodes in higher quality, especially if you have an HDTV PVR.
Funny... it yields 20,900,000 results for me. Maybe I'll give it a shot with quotes later.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Doc Searls: "Will the video only run on Windows." Larry: "I think we've not done as good a job as we should. We have a version for Mac that's not downloadable yet. We have some teams working hard on getting the other things ported but they're not out yet." So at least they admit to have been sluggish about getting their applications ported over to mac and linux. And do seem to be working in that direction. "Our users and AOL users can message each other. The openness of Google talk ..."
Would like to see more on this. I don't think the two networks can message each other yet. But maybe it means gTalk and AIM users will be able to talk directly instead of a roundabout way.
"iPod and Sony Playstation Portable users will also be able to download and watch any non-copy-protected content from Google Video, and even get it specially optimized for playback on their devices."
Good idea, I definatly see it being done with all the other video services. If it isn't already.
At first I thought what the hell is a google pack going to be good for. But it's actually an easy way to update many programs at once, especially your google suite. And you get the choice of what you opt to install. I would like to see all the downloadable google programs not use their own system tray icon. As well as futher integration of all their products.
So it seems everyone is developing a pay video service (yahoo, msn, google, apple). How long could it be until all the content providers, the same ones from tv, put there stuff on each one of those video services? And each video service (yahoo, msn, google, apple) becomes a cable/video provider for the internet? I don't profess to know a lot about computers but it seems to make sense to me. I mean it would give the content producers more money but offering to more services. And how long after that, until it is a simple monthly subscription service? Where we choose (if we choose) the video/cable provider that suits us. Anyway I see each yahoo, msn, google, and apple providing most of the content you can get on your television soon.
Another important question: based on the previous paragraph and if this happens think about how much this will piss off the cable providers. I mean if people drop their cable television providers for these new internet ones (if each ends up offering the same content) they will be reduced to being an internet provider. Not only that but these internet services can offer loads more content a la user uploaded videos, indy stuff, etc... And its just a simple step to hook your computer up to your tv. How everything pans out in this new war will be interesting.
From the Slashdot story: "Charlie Rose will post his interviews the day after a broadcast, allowing a free streaming for the first 24 hours then making it downloadable afterward for 99 cents each."
This is excellent. Charlie Rose interviews are often the only way to know more about the leaders who affect our lives so much.
In the past, Charlie Rose interviews have been available in transcript form, for a lot of money, and the transcripts are not guaranteed to be accurate. Videotape cost maybe $30, with another $20 for rush delivery.
It seems odd that just one post ago we were debating the future of digital media, and now we're talking about downloading TV shows from the internet, and will then have the ability to burn them to DVD.
So, who still cares about Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD? I know that what little inkling of opinion I had before doesn't really seem to matter anymore. As long as I have the source programming that I've downloaded and paid for, I can put it on whatever media I want to - or don't want to. Guess I'll have to build my own media PC now... instead of buying a new HD / Blu-Ray player. I'm very ok with that.
hi mom!
Wherever you are from, there is already a wonderful worldwide distribution system. It allows you to enjoy commercial-free TV shows, first-run movies (although a bit dodgy), almost any remotely popular DVD, LOADS of pr0n, games, appz, books, and almost anything digital you can name. It also has a filter system surpassing that of any system google or others can invent. The popularity of what you can get and how quickly you get it is based entirely on how much others like it. The sad state of the world is that this 'light-years-ahead of any commercial enterprise' system is so amazing, companies are messing their pants because they don't know what to do with it. One day, they will realize the error of their ways and follow the twelve-step prayer--
Dear Lord BT,
I admit that I am powerless over the addiction to entertainment I have created in others.
I admit that others become unmanageable if I try to control them.
Help me this day to understand the true meaning of powerlessness.
Remove from me all denial and help me embrace what I have created.
I love Bittorrent, and I... am.... a PIRATE!!!
Top-Rated, by viewers, TV Shows:
http://www.mininova.org/cat-list/8/seeds
Or, try:
http://www.torrenttyphoon.com/
http://www.torrentreactor.net/
http://www.piratebay.org/
Google ships DRM.
DRM is evil.
Therefore Google is doing evil.
Liars.
Err, you miss the point.
Cable providers get the majority of their feeds via digital satellite nowadays, not analogue. They run it through hardware that reduces the MPEG blocking artifacts and blast it down their analogue pipes. Or they reencode it yet again at a lower bitrate so they can sell you 200 channels of "digital quality".
I'll take their cleaned up A feed over their double compressed D feed anyday.
Doc Searls: "Will the video only run on Windows." Larry: "I think we've not done as good a job as we should. We have a version for Mac that's not downloadable yet. We have some teams working hard on getting the other things ported but they're not out yet." So at least they admit to have been sluggish about getting their applications ported over to mac and linux. And do seem to be working in that direction. "Our users and AOL users can message each other. The openness of Google talk ..."
Would like to see more on this. I don't think the two networks can message each other yet. But maybe it means gTalk and AIM users will be able to talk directly instead of a roundabout way.
"iPod and Sony Playstation Portable users will also be able to download and watch any non-copy-protected content from Google Video, and even get it specially optimized for playback on their devices."
Good idea, I definatly see it being done with all the other video services. If it isn't already.
At first I thought what the hell is a google pack going to be good for. But it's actually an easy way to update many programs at once, especially your google suite. And you get the choice of what you opt to install. I would like to see all the downloadable google programs not use their own system tray icon. As well as futher integration of all their products.
So it seems everyone is developing a pay video service (yahoo, msn, google, apple). How long could it be until all the content providers, the same ones from tv, put there stuff on each one of those video services? And each video service (yahoo, msn, google, apple) becomes a cable/video provider for the internet? I don't profess to know a lot about computers but it seems to make sense to me. I mean it would give the content producers more money but offering to more services. And how long after that, until it is a simple monthly subscription service? Where we choose (if we choose) the internet video/cable provider that suits us. Anyway I see each yahoo, msn, google, and apple providing most of the content you can get on your television soon.
Another important question: based on the previous paragraph and if this happens think about how much this will piss off the cable providers. I mean if people drop their cable television providers for these new internet ones (if each ends up offering the same content) they will be reduced to being an internet provider. Not only that but these internet services can offer loads more content a la user uploaded videos, indy stuff, etc... And its just a simple step to hook your computer up to your tv or any device up to the internet. How everything pans out in this new war will be interesting.
But would this maybe give way to a more uniform drm between all these companies? With apple, because they have the dominate player, i'd have to say no. But with the others? Agian probably not. And if internet companies were the video content providers of the future would microsoft actually be forced to serve video feeds to people on linux? Or release there video application on linux? Especially considering it would give whoever does somewhat of a leg up in that realm.
As I said earlier I don't know a lot about computers. I've tried linux, and run ubuntu on my other computer whos sole function is to surf the web. Main is windows for games. But do give your input. I'm curious whats possible and whats not.
Lets face it. Paying $3 per episode is friggin' expensive. Rent a DVR if you're worried about missing your shows. Miss 4 and you've paid for it. Not to mention the extra benefit of just recording everything anyway. And you don't have to watch much to quickly pay for the cost of cable or satellite. This is simply not a TV replacement unless you only watch 1 show.
The money will be pouring in not from the US, but from overseas where these shows don't get aired or lag months behind schedule. Perhaps shows from overseas will find their ways into American computers, but for the most part anything that isn't in English just doesn't sell over here.
Maybe Gnome is suing Google over G*.
Just kidding, both are good people...
...that the favicon on http://www.urge.com/ looks like the Netscape logo? Pretty ironic, no?
Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
Now why would I want to pay several dollars an hour to download DRM encumbered content that probably only plays once and definitely will only play on your computer(s). You even have to provide your own bandwidth. The only player that will play the content might or might not run under WINE, and will be sluggish if it does run.
Lets sum of the pros and cons of pay per view over internet (what Google is doing) and P2P:
Pros of P2P:
- Vast selection, including things intentionally kept out of circulation like many Disney films and WWII propaganda.
- Cheap. Costs only the cost of bandwidth and a little of my time. Since bandwidth is already paid for, the marginal cost is essentially zero.
- Redistribution is extremely easy. Many protocols (such as Bittorrent and Amule/Emule) do it automatically. Making hard copies and backups is as easy and cheap as burning DVDs.
- Will play on a vast array of hardware and software. Linux, MS Windows, Macintosh (each with dozens of available players), certain DVD players, and even game consoles if properly modded and loaded with Linux and a media player.
- High quality video, at least compared to the average download service. Quality available will slowly improve as computers and source media improve.
- Extremely labor and resource efficient. The only cost is the cost of bandwidth and some of your time, but no employees are needed. This has a knock-on effect on strongly reducing the GINI index and income disparity by reducing the fraction of GDP passing through corporations.
- Very resistant to attack. A nuclear strike knocking out 90% of the world's computers and population will knock out only a small fraction of the 'library' stored on P2P networks. The lost material will undoubtably be niche material of use to only a few people. The same goes with government edicts, McCarthyism, and witch hunts.
- Plenty of porn. Available in both straight and gay varieties. No financial record for the husband/wife/kids/parents to dig into. For those into porn that is less than legal in their country (or in countries banning it entirely), it is safer than getting it via other means (because of the volume and because it is legal in other jurisdictions - future encrypted and obfuscated P2P networks could make it far safer too).
Pros of pay per view over internet:
- It's mostly legal. You're still violating plenty of patents, but few if any copyrights.
Er, if you're happy with sucky download resolution, why would you be interested in a HD player anyway?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I would suggest Avast. It's free for home use. All updates are free. Too many people stop paying for the updates on popular programs like Norton, so it renders the software almost pointless.
Can I bum a sig?
will these videos be captioned or retain original captioning from the tv broadcasts somehow?
If anyone can possibly make a good and fair DRM system, it's Google.
I don't know if they'll end up screwing this one up and end up just playing along the content providers game but there's a chance that a new breed of fair DRM will emerge from Google.
I think that the DRM concept isn't necessarily the problem. The problem lies in its current implementations.
Well, at least, most of them.
It comes to me that a very nicely implemented sorta DRM system is Valve's Steam. It actually adds value, IMHO. I don't know its innards but it seems to provide some kind of developer platform which abstracts content loading, so that it can be downloaded on demand. A direct consequence of this is that I don't ever need to worry about losing the game disks of a Steam powered game. I can always download them again. I find this pretty neat.
You gotta start somewhere. Might as well be somebody that will bring limited traffic while you stress test the system.
Plus, maybe they are hoping to have it ready for CBS to give them rights to the NCAA basketball tournament games so that when your favorite team wins, you'll be willing to turn over some money to get a nice copy of those games you forgot to record but want to keep around for when you are feeling nostalgic.
In australia, for example, The Nine Network has the rights to CSI and Survivor through a deal with CBS.
Part of that deal is gaurantees that the content wont be available on video formats in australia untill after the production or after the first australian airing (at least thats what I assume would be there).
If CBS were to allow google video to release these to australia before Nine has aired them (which is what people would be looking for), Nine would have grounds to sue CBS for breach of contract (I suspect).
This is the first I've heard of these bookmarklets
can you link to an example?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
http://www.gp2x.co.uk/
On my local news, they were saying the new video service will only be available on the new google pc's. I haven't seen much of an outcry out there, but I'm curious if anybody else has heard such a reference? (LA channel 9)
US channels also mess with program times, cut shows mid season, cut content from shows to fit more ads in, cut content from shows to make them fit a 3:2 screen better, cancel whole seasons... and 18 months behind is nothing, here in the US we're not going to get Dr Who at all.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
One of the big problems with the iTMS is that the resolution sucks. Another big problem is that the content sucks (it's mostly US major network TV). A third problem is I can't watch it on my portable video device, or on my TV, because of the DRM.
Illegal downloads have none of those problems.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
We know that Google has been gobbling up dark fibre like crazy since last year. In that light, this announcement makes sense. What I'm curious about is how much bandwidth are they consuming and distributing at any one moment? Given that they have multiple centers throughout the globe, surely they have a tiered architecture of some sort, something like:
X x 1Tbps
Y x 500Gbps
Z x 20Gbps
where X,Y,Z are number of centers for the given max bandwidth. With the new video distribution model, do they have a couple of Petabit/sec class centers?
Inquiring minds want to know!
I imagine that steve jobs has treated himself to a cocktail and is lounging in his giant house after Google's (is that all?) announcement of a video store and software installer.
See, Apple has done a lot of things right for the consumer:
1. Standardized pricing (for the most part). Some say this is unfair. How is this any different than Target setting its prices as it chooses? Apple is a retailer just as any other. And how much easier would it be if you knew that when you went in to a Target store, every CD would be 12.99 and every dvd 19.99? Yes there would be no great deals but there would never be any sticker shock either. I would certainly prefer this over the current system of drastic reductions for new release week and then overpriced until it has been out for 6 months.
2. Standard DRM. Yes we all agree that no DRM would be better. However if we must have it then having every download use the same rules is best for the customer. From the Google press release, it sounds as if everything is up to the content provider. Does it expire? If it expires is it after a number of viewings or after a specific time? Will it play on my PSP or iPod? Do I need to be connected to the internet to play the file? Gotta figure it out for EACH purchase. Flexibility in this instance only benefits the content provider. If I was a user who routinely downloaded a show to watch on my ipod and then tried a new show and didn't understand that the new show had entirely different DRM rules I would be pretty pissed. Especially if the file expired!
3. Works on Mac and Windows. This covers *most* people. Doesn't help linux but I hoenstly don't know if that is much of a loss to apple or many consumers. Linux users tend to be more militant abiout the drm and sticker price.
Now, I think there is room for improvement in the itunes media store. Mainly I think the video needs to be Hi-Def or at least dvd quality. Otherwise you are choosing convenience in exchange for lower quality - with roughly the same pricing (1.99/episode x 22eps/season = roughly $44 pr the same as a season on dvd). Although this is exactly what happened with MP3 downloads so who knows... Personally I would happy with a 1.99 ipod / 2.99 hd structure. I have grown so tired of TV and all the commercials, changing time slots, good shows being cancelled (*Cough*arrested development*Cough*) and everything that I * want* to buy into the ITMS for video. I just can't deal with the video quality on my projection system. If apple can just deliver on the quality and get all the content, they can replace my cable bill and make me happier about TV. If the content providers can just see how much of an opportunity this is and not demand stupidly high prices for everything (4 bucks for an NBA game?!) the world is their oyster.
-matt
Yep the global whiteboard still has plenty of nationalistic uses, I live in Oz and respect the BBC as a source of news but they only download their video to the UK. I understand that it was paid for by the UK but still can't help being a little dissapointed. As an Aussie I find little to watch on the commercial channels, I also find it embarassing that Rupert Murdoch is identified as an Aussie. Most of my viewing time is spent watching the ABC or SBS, both (in my opinion) are world class broadcasters and we should take more pride in them as an alternative to the Ruperts of this world.
I'm also not sure that Oz is all that far behind anymore, I recently watched a Letterman show where he bluntly accused O'Riley (from faux) of lying(several times) during an interview about political correctness and Christmas. It was a jovial interview but Letterman was obviously intent on screwing him as badly as he could while he was outside of his protective bubble. I have never been a big fan of the Letterman show and his jokes still suck but the way he conducted this interview and his humility when Madona told him off have added to my respect of him as a person.
What I would like to see is a law compelling all broadcasters to submit (into a national archive) a digitized copy of their UNEDITED videos of OUR politicians spoken words. Clips of a personal and non-financial nature would not be stored without personal permission. The archive would natuarlly be freely open to search engines and media sources could have the right to demand a STANDARD fee if anyone were to use their clips for profit. Most importantly, media giants would not have the right to refuse access. As it currently stands media companies own our politicans words, some (cough-Faux-cough) habitually use this freehold to curtail the feedoms of others, ie: heavily censor political speech that does not match their narrow political agenda.
With an archive it would be much simpler to "build a story" using a politicans words out of context but it would become increasingly difficult for the spin masters to censor that context. Many who own "the press" naturally see this sort of thing as a credible threat to their still powerfull voices.
I belive the printing press gave those who could afford to own one a very powerfull voice, the internet has reduced the entry cost to global publication (and quality porn) by several orders of magnitute in the space of a single decade. It's one thing to have feedom of speech but with six-billion voices chattering at once we also require a freedom to listen to what our policians say in public, read and use knowlage our taxes have paid for and eventually listen to what corporate spin our politicians hear at "corporate dinner speaches". It's inevitiable that corporations and governments will use technology to watch us in public, we should return the favour in kind.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Click here to watch the 9 minutes and 8 seconds keynote.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Watch the keynote from CNET News.com. It looks like the videos from video.google.com.
:I
Heh, Larry Page isn't a good speaker.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
-1 Offtopic. +5 Insightful.
I'll stick with Usenet.
You may just have to, since I doubt that DVD Jon will be doing any DRM-hacking now that he's gainfully employed and located in the USA.
He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about... simply a blind follower on the Google bandwagon. So just because Google is doing this, everyone's gonna stop buying or renting DVDs and start watching videos on their PCs? Get real! And don't tell me about PC media center, most of the people who has that is already BitTorrenting their shows. Most average-joes have home entertainment and watch DVD movies on a 52" TV set with their friends and family. Do you really think it appeals to them to pay and download a 500MB video file and then watch it on their 19" LCD? Not likely. OK, so the format is suitable for mobility. So what? Again, average-joes do not watch videos on their portable player.
What I really want is live events. I see they have a deal with the NBA, so perhaps they will be streaming live NBA games.
Im hoping they will broadcast "pay per stream" live NHL games that people cant recieve in blackout areas.
Was this demoed on stage during the keynote? Anyone know where to download from? Thx! i.
His point was that the cost of programming @ $2/episode is too expensive. Possibly in the future when there are many digital download outlets, competition will drive the cost per episode down to where it will make sense for "Joe average" to download his favorite show. And Please, no drivel about how the content creators can't make make enough money to continue to provide us with quality programming like we are getting in "reality shows" if they can't get us to download it for at least $2/episode. Until the price drops below a certain threshold, I will not download.
Please mod me 1 or troll. It's where the truth is these days, even on Slashdot. Beware the power of moderators everywh
in communist russia, you dont watch sony videos bought off of google, sony videos bought off of google watch you :)
Doc Searls: "Will the video only run on Windows." Larry: "I think we've not done as good a job as we should. We have a version for Mac that's not downloadable yet. We have some teams working hard on getting the other things ported but they're not out yet."
..."
So at least they admit to have been sluggish about getting their applications ported over to mac and linux. And do seem to be working in that direction.
"Our users and AOL users can message each other. The openness of Google talk
Would like to see more on this. I don't think the two networks can message each other yet. But maybe it means gTalk and AIM users will be able to talk directly instead of a roundabout way.
"iPod and Sony Playstation Portable users will also be able to download and watch any non-copy-protected content from Google Video, and even get it specially optimized for playback on their devices."
Good idea, I definatly see it being done with all the other video services. If it isn't already.
At first I thought what the hell is a google pack going to be good for. But it's actually an easy way to update many programs at once, especially your google suite. And you get the choice of what you opt to install. I would like to see all the downloadable google programs not use their own system tray icon. As well as futher integration of all their products.
So it seems everyone is developing a pay video service (yahoo, msn, google, apple). How long could it be until all the content providers, the same ones from tv, put there stuff on each one of those video services? And each video service (yahoo, msn, google, apple) becomes a cable/video provider for the internet? I don't profess to know a lot about computers but it seems to make sense to me. I mean it would give the content producers more money but offering to more services. And how long after that, until it is a simple monthly subscription service? Where we choose (if we choose) the internet video/cable provider that suits us. Anyway I see each yahoo, msn, google, and apple providing most of the content you can get on your television soon.
Another important question: based on the previous paragraph and if this happens think about how much this will piss off the cable providers. I mean if people drop their cable television providers for these new internet ones (if each ends up offering the same content) they will be reduced to being an internet provider. Not only that but these internet services can offer loads more content a la user uploaded videos, indy stuff, etc... And its just a simple step to hook your computer up to your tv or any device up to the internet. How everything pans out in this new war will be interesting.
But would this maybe give way to a more uniform drm between all these companies? With apple, because they have the dominate player, i'd have to say no. But with the others? Agian probably not. And if internet companies were the video content providers of the future would microsoft actually be forced to serve video feeds to people on linux? Or release there video application on linux? Especially considering it would give whoever does somewhat of a leg up in that realm.
As I said earlier I don't know a lot about computers. I've tried linux, and run ubuntu on my other computer whos sole function is to surf the web. Main is windows for games. But do give your input. I'm curious whats possible and whats not.
When CBS will be giving away the NCAA basketball playoffs for free.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I couldn't help but notice the price - $1.99. Hmm, where have I seen that before?
Google's store is said to offer higher resolution video but I do not think it will be long before Apple does as well...
I think too many details are murky yet to decide if Google will prevail of the ITMS video store. We don't know anything about the interface to the store, or the transport used (rumor to be Real), or the DRM for full-sized video.
I was pretty excited about the Google video store as I was thinking Google could possibly come up with a really cool twist or two on the idea. But really the store does not seem that different to the ITMS video store (currently not all the special either really except that it actually exists) so I'm not sure which to root for, if any.
Microsoft's deal with Starz is like two fading movie actors meeting, getting drunk, and then proclaiming how they are both the greatest actors who ever lived and how excited the world would be to see them together in a movie but really no-one cares anymore because they are not relevant. Or something like that. Microsoft has the parts to be relevant (with the 360 and media center) just not the will or vision to really succeed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
http://news.com.com/DivX+partners+with+Google+Vide o%2C+Pioneer/2100-1025_3-6022290.html?tag=nefd.top
DivX partners with Google Video, Pioneer
By Elinor Mills
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: January 6, 2006, 4:00 PM PST
LAS VEGAS--Video technology company DivX is partnering with Google to make Google Video accessible on a variety of consumer electronics devices, the companies announced Friday at the Consumer Electronics Show here.
The DivX video-codec video compression technology offers DVD quality at 10 times the compression of traditional MPEG2 files, enabling a full-length film to fit on one CD or eight films to fit on one DVD.
DivX also announced that Pioneer Electronics will introduce a new line of DivX-certified DVD players and recorders in the U.S. and JVC will introduce a new line of DivX Ultra-certified in-car DVD receivers in North America.
More than 50 million DivX-certified devices are on the market worldwide, San Diego-based DivX said.
In addition, DivX said Zoran's Vaddis processors are DivX certified and ADS Tech's DVD Xpress DX2 audio/video-capture device supports DivX digital video technology.
Further strengthening its ties to Hollywood, DivX announced that Christopher McGurk, former Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer chief operating officer, has joined the DivX board of directors.
I would certainly prefer this over the current system of drastic reductions for new release week and then overpriced until it has been out for 6 months.
I don't get how this is different to Apple. When the ipod was first released its price was utterly ludicrous... then they slowly dropped it.
Plus you could always get cheap ipods from discount dealers (it's always better to buy from someone other than the manufacturer if you want a good deal) so what is this 'standardised' pricing you're on about?
Standard DRM.
What's 'standard' about Apple DRM? It's their own in-house proprietary crap.
Mark Pesce argues that the broadcast TV industry is about to fundamentally change, and this Google deal seems to be part of what he is suggesting. Pesce also suggests that it might be more economical to distribute an advertising-supported TV show for free on DVD (e.g. given away with your daily newspaper) than on broadcast television, and that on-screen advertising during the programme (e.g. flashing in the corner of your screen) may replace ads placed between acts. A video of his presentation is available via BitTorrent (see link above) and in a lower-quality version via Google video.
Well, on-demand Google video downloads, you silly.
That story could have been merged with this one, to give more information:
e x.jsp?epi-content=GENERIC&newsId=20060106005603&nd mHsc=v2*A1105016400000*B1136621288000*DgroupByDate *J2*N1002692&newsLang=en&beanID=1525802384&viewID= news_view
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/ind
Or are the two not related? I think they are.
-- roy204.
I like that idea. I think the general idea behind iTunes selling videos is great. Except for one small cavet. It's a gimmick to sell more iPods. You can't get videos in a size that won't play on an iPod screen I'm quite sure (and yes, their H.264 video does look good, but low resolution is low resolution). If this offers videos in larger sizes at reasonable prices, I'm in..
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Businesses that only ship bytes over the internet are usually hit with high amounts of fraud compared with those that ship physical items. I wonder what payment system Google is going to come up with and how it will deal with fraud. If fraud is high then credit card chargebacks are high and credit card processors want a bigger percentage to cover the risk. Incedently, how long until this is full of pr0n? Or is that the point and the NBA is just a cover?
http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6021998.html
Apparently everyone missed the other article that states: "Also for $1.99, people will be able to rent, for 24 hours, recent episodes of popular TV series from CBS like "NCIS," "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" and "The Amazing Race," Chane said."
So the big shows are on a rental basis, not even a regular DRMed download.
I can either rent it for 24 hours, or buy it cheaper on DVD (or record on DVR/PC/VHS) and watch forever. Gee, I wonder what people will choose.
To their credit, Google has built locks that can be used flexibly by the content providers themselves. Of course Google is going to say, "Oh, we allow for full flexibility. Content providers are not forced to use our DRM schemes and if they have a problem with using our scheme, that's their problem." That's counterproductive and does not advance the argument at all. Besides, at this point Google has enough brand equity that sticking up for the user by saying 'no DRM' would eventually draw enough content providers to the video store.
I guess it's "Don't be Evil" to "Build the tools so you can let others be Evil."
Well, I wasn't very clear so let me apologize first for that. One of the main reasons that I'm excited about television for download being legitimized by anyone is hopefully it means there will be a increase in quality over what's currently available. It's my thought that there is no reason as connection speeds and drive capacities increase that we cannot start seeing very high res video available for download. Also, media on demand for a television series means you can purchase the entire season for what, twelve bucks? I just like the idea provided by any supplier in a legal form. I think that we're kind of being led astry by the dubious legality of the torrent community... and I don't want that to be a contributor to keeping the expansion of internet video on demand from becoming a reality sooner.
hi mom!
Something ladende with Digital Restrictions Management in some weird format?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I guess my real point was that there is a break point where a novelty crosses over and can become a nesessity. By this I mean that music and video downloads will remain a novelty for most of us until a more practical(i.e. cheaper) pricing model comes about. I draw a parallel to cell phones. Origionally the domain of the rich or those with extream business needs wheer every call was metered and expensive. Now everyones kid has one with nights and weekends free. And the cell phone companies are not suffering dollar wise.
Please mod me 1 or troll. It's where the truth is these days, even on Slashdot. Beware the power of moderators everywh
I don't care for the pricing myself. $2 an episode?? That's ridiculously high. I watch at least 2-4 shows a night. That's 60 to 120 shows a month. That's $120 to $240. Right now my cable is $50. And I even feel that that is a bit high, considering I download most of my shows already (grin). And I would want them to be in HDTV 5.1-audio XVID avis. Would the studios offer me what I want in the format I am arleady accustomed to?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I do not have HBO and I would buy Sopranos episodes for $1 - $2 each. Any more I could subscribe to the service.
Would you like to download Google Videos? Take a look at
.flv format, so you can convert it later to .mpeg .avi .wmv etc, for example.
http://downloadgooglevideo.cjb.net
Save your files as