Slashdot Mirror
iPod To Eventually Hold All the Video In the World?
An anonymous reader writes "A senior Google exec has been talking up the prospect of iPods that can hold all the world's media due to the plummeting price of storage and its increasing volume-to-size ratio. Google's VP of European operations, Nikesh Arora, predicts that in as little as just over a decade's time, iPods will be capable of storing 'any video ever produced.'" From the article: "Arora believes, mobile is likely to follow the same path. 'Mobile is not going to be a different thing,' he added — and if the mobile industry is to capitalize on the growth of content, it would be wise to ape the development of the internet. He said: 'The mobile industry has to go through the same phases the internet has gone through... Mobile will have the same learning curve. It would be somewhat foolish to leapfrog the stages the internet went through.'"
But, I can put all the video worth watching on an iPod now and still have room left over.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The iPod is for porn!
Something in there isn't right. I think this is meant to be either
OR
Apple: Gee, Google, what are we going to do tonight?
The Google: The same thing we do every night, Apple ... Try to hold ALL THE VIDEO IN THE WORLD!
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
But what a stupid idea. Why have millions of copies of everything when theoretically networks will allow there to be a few replicated copies? Seems a pointless waste of disk space to me.
v ideo crowd.
Besides, there will be many more videos ever produced by that time than there are now... I doubt technology will keep pace with the rolling-themselves-off-a-cliff-in-a-shopping-car-
....At 2x2 pixel resolution, 1 bit color, 1 fps... Where do you draw the line on video quality?
Personal storage is something we do now, because networking isn't cool enough. In ten years, it's entirely possible that networking will have increased to the point where the idea of keeping a local copy of ANYTHING will seem weird.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Let's suppose you can in fact cram all the audio/video in the world onto an iPod? What then? How could you conceivably use all that information? There aren't enough hours in the day as it is, let alone to work your way through all that.
Personally, I don't see how this could be useful. The rapid expansion of memory capacity coupled with the falling price has led to bloat, whereby content is trying to expand to fill up these enormous memory spaces. To what end? Isn't there some kind of inverse Moore's Law for memory?
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
What exactly is the estimated capacity for "all the world's [media]". This sounds like one heck of a bold statement when the numbers at the moment are unfathomable for holding a back catalogue of everything broadcast on network television and everything from blockbusters to B-movies from 1890 on, let alone net-generated videos, cable and alternative delivery methods.
New content is produced all the time, content is also likely to be stored at a better quality as long as space keeps increasing. I'm looking forward to the day of 80GB nanos, to me the nano is the ideal size, any smaller and it'd be awkward to control.
I'm really tempted to save that article just so I can pull it out and show how naive people were back in 2006. If there is one thing time has taught me, it's that the volume of information expands in relation to your available storage. I mean 10 years ago one of our 500GB modern hard drives could have probably stored all of the video available on the internet with room to spare.
I do agree that an iPod like device could probably hold enough video (high quality video at that) to well exceed its battery life however (modern iPods have no trouble doing that with music).
I read the internet for the articles.
I do think the iPod will be facing some serious challengers in the next few years which is what we need to keep the flow of innovations but the Zune is not going to be it. Once storage gets smaller expect cellphones to be a credible solution, UI on most cellphones suck (particularly Motorola, Nokia is probably the best but not perfect), that I think will mean apple doesn't have to worry for a little while longer.
Back to the topic, the most capacity I'd really need out of a device is enough space to keep enough music and videos to keep me entertained during a vacation so I don't need to bring a laptop if I don't want to. Everything else can be stored on my home computer, it'd be great if it was possible to have enough storage cheap enough to store the worlds video collection (YouTube's hardware costs would be minimal then - Google would love that) but in reality do we really need our own personal YouTube mirror?
including the exponentially increasing number of Naruto anime music videos?
Imagine a video iPod with a nice little screen (640x480) and enough store for your entire video and music collection.
You can carry it with you anywhere.
Useful?
I can usefully take music with me, because I can *listen* while I physically perform other tasks - like being at the gym, sitting down at work while I code.
But *video?*
Video is much less useful, because to *watch* you can't be doing other things - your eyes are occupied.
So I think it's only useful for being portable in situations where you have to sit and *wait* and cannot do other things.
For me that means just one thing; waiting for the bus and maybe when I'm on the bus, if it doesn't make me feel ill.
For others, I can only imagine similar situations, e.g. being stuck on a mode of transport.
In 2000 we all travel in flying car without any traffic jam, doctor will be a very knowledge computer, and we will have a pill that solve all the medical problem, and the must important, we will live in a society of leisure, eveyone will need to work only one hour by month.
Now, I travel in my car 1 hour every morming to be closed in a stupid cube 8 to 10 hours by day. I have to way to see a doctor, and the doctor is most of the time unknowledge. The pill he gave me have so side effect that I become more sick, and I have to spend all my time in the cube paying for this. Maybe, if I'm good with god, I will be able to take 5 minutes by year of leisure.
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
Isn't it, like, violating Apple's rights or whatever is a Google guy uses the term 'iPod'? Yehova, Yehooova!
... the storage space won't matter. If DRM legislators have their way, you won't be able to have any video on your iPod do to some stupid copy right law.
Carrying a drive with all the video in the world sounds like a great way to become the target of all the lawsuits in the world. Unless, of course, you have already paid all the money in the world for all the proper licensing rights in the world.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Let me guess: 4 billion people constantly videoing each other with their HD capable cell phones..
Sorry, content will/is being generated as too high a rate to ever hold all the video ever produced.
I look forward to installing Google Desktop on my ipod to find the interesting stuff on my player.
".. women will have breasts all over."
- David Byrne
http://www.bitworksmusic.com/
BitWorksMusic.com -- odd tunes for odd times
There is always a trade-off between quality, disk space, and the power required for decompression. Perhaps we will be happy having all of this video content at today's resolution, but somehow I suspect that we will use up the extra space for quality or for some other reason - like increased battery life. Yet another option is not increasing the storage on the device and bringing the price down. For instance, a 4GB Nano is now roughly half of the price of an original 5GB iPod, and it is much smaller, has a color screen, is solid-state, has better audio quality, and has better battery life. I'd expect that trend to continue.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
We could already be watching all of our TV shows over the internet on-demand.
The average person isn't watching the bulk of their TV this way because the networks don't want to give up that kind of control. To say nothing about the people who don't even want to control their TV experience. Some people are just happy to flop onto the couch and let a gigantic media corporation design their entire evening's entertainment experience.
Am I a villager? I ask that question because I have never been caught up in the hype surrounding the iPOD. It somehow, does not appeal to me in any way. I watch and listen to news the "old" fashioned way. Am I alone? Or is there someone like me out there.
While storage technology has been growing in capacity at a remarkable rate, transfer speeds seem to be growing at a much slower rate. Let's say I've got an Ipod that can hold all the world's videos -- how long it might it take to get them all to it?
My MP3 player can already hold every video ever made (or going to be made for that matter). I'm just having problems storing the keys I need to find them - some of them can be over 700MBytes.
for the first real-life edition of the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Second, we would have the same storage just smaller size. Why have a flash memory MP3 player instead of a hard drive MP3 player? Smaller size. I think anyone who has read anything in the Cyber Punk genre knows about implanted memory. Having a few terabytes of internal memory may start to be common place. Have Wikipedia in the head.
And yes pissing off the MPAA would be reason enough to make a player that stored all of the world's video.
If you put too much video in one place, a singularity can form, which would really suck.
I remember discussing this online before, some guy said that someday there will be hard drives big enough to store every song he owns. I said I already have a hard drive that stores every song I own, and my music library is only about 160Gb. I retorted that someday there will be hard drives big enough to store every song ever [I]recorded,[/I] it would be like someone delivering an iPod with the entire iTunes music library already on it, and you'd just need keys to unlock any song you want.
But there's a problem, of course. Music fans hate low bitrate encodings. And it's the same way with video. I remember the days of Video Discs, it was great picture quality, and it started off the era of drastically improved video display systems, big screens, etc. And then just as the TV equipment started to get really good, Video Discs were discontinued, and they started delivering the content in compressed format. There's no DVD that can compare with the image quality of an uncompressed Laser Disc, DVDs are usually 6:1 compression. Satellite is the same way, it started out as enthusiasts with big dishes receiving the uncompressed signals, then as it became mainstream, systems like DirecTV used compression, usually 8:1 or worse. Cable is doing the same thing now with digital cable.
And YouTube is even worse, the basic storage format is 320x240, even though it's displayed in their web pages upscaled at a higher rez. Sure it's a compromise in quality to save bandwidth. But every single one of these compromises sucks, it's set during the early adoption phase when bandwidth is inadequate or expensive, then as bandwidth becomes more available or cheaper, everyone bemoans the lack of quality due to the high compression. Some systems upgrade, like the iTunes movies that are now in 640x480 instead of 320x240, but they're still heavily compressed, it isn't practical to deliver DVD quality compression, let alone uncompressed video.
So I am dissatisfied with these compromises. The video industry has spent billions developing the latest and greatest display technology, but the content delivery systems are just not delivering anything close to the quality these systems can display. What is wrong with this picture?
Sure we can make a video iPod that could hold almost unlimited quantities of video. It's just going to be so compressed that it won't be worth watching. Hell, I'll deliver a highly compressed video stream right here in this message:
1001010110001001
That was 800 hours of video compressed down to two bytes. Sorry if the compression was a bit severe.
...and I'll be commuting to Mars for work.
Sounds just like the BT 'technologist' who thought we'd be plugging cables directly into the back of our heads soon.
I for one welcome our new media storing iPod overlords!
Daton, Ohio, Dec. 2nd, 2017. John Smith, a plumber by trade in Ohio, accidentally plugged in his new 20Petabyte iPod into an unfirewalled port on his home router. As a result every video and movie ever made was unintentionally shared out to the Internet. The MPAA is suing for $14 Trillion.
Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
As an exercise in DVR-ology I worked out that by 2016 I should be able to buy enough hard drive space for < $500 (today's dollars) to hold all the video I'd want to watch for most of my life online, using a RAID mirror, by just scaling up Moore's Law. OK, so that much data could be un-RAID'ed on an iPod by then.
But that's just me. Given HD camcorders, YouTube and 6 Billion people on earth, rapidly becoming technological, "All the Video in The World" is about 6 billion times larger than what we can do next decade - that's several more decades of Moore's Law to contend with.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Can't wait to see this video!
The iPod Pequeno already holds every song known to man...
of course, by christmas it will be obsolete!
you've gotta love how SNL skits become reality.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I can already put all the video in the world on my iPod! At 5,000,000:1 compression ratio! Who said it was viewable though?!
Seriously though, do they realize how many anime tentical rape videos are out there???
blah
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
Saying an iPOD will be able to store every video ever produced is like saying that eventually will have digital optical discs with enough capacity to hold the whole internet. It misses the point completely. Once upon a time we'd go and buy a good soft repository (like SIMTEL, to name one) in a couple of CDs ... and that would take care of the need to download files off BBSs. Now the internet is more about dynamic content (like Slashdot), and the constant generation of new static content (like new videos uploaded daily to YouTube, new flash animations, etc.). The speed of software distribution makes shareware/freeware CDs pointless, since they can become obsolete in a month.
So, thinking about holding every video in an iPOD sounds to me like thinking of tomorrow technology in today's terms.
We already have video cameras in most modern cell phones, palms, etc. so let me assume the live streaming of HD video, and other new forms of amateur video, will seriously define what YouTube will be like in the future. And holding every single video in existence won't sound so logical.
As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
Are my reading skills off, or is Google saying that an Ipod will be able to connect to a server capable of holding all the media in the world? That I'd find believable.
As a result, the Google VP believes, there will be greater convergence between mobile and internet, as consumers expect to be able to access traditional web content and services on the mobile platform.
Google is talking about network storage, Apple is talking local.
Apple's claim is pretty bold saying that an entire years worth of all video produced can be stored locally for the same price (for the device at least).
All your media are belong to iPod?
How many terrabytes are on Google Video and YouTube? Personally, even if I could store everything on one device, I wouldn't want to. Being able to retrieve any video to a device, directly from the device, would be pretty cool.
It says all video produced ever. What do they mean by that? Is that just Hollywood movies, or does it include Bollywood movies as well?
What about the Movies of other countries? Or about TV moovies? Or TV in general? OK. All the TV stations in the US? Worldwide?
How about movies made at home? Or with phones? CCTV?
Also won't the amount increase
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Thats a LOT of pr0n
Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?
Shouldn't they be working on the bandwidth problem first? What's the point of being ABLE to store everything ever made when my bandwidth will be more than saturated just downloading everything as it's released.
Well, IMDB currently lists 471,241 movies. Let's assume those are about 90 minutes each. That's 42,411,690 of video. They also list 367,066 episodes of television shows. Let's assume those are about 22 minutes each (to account for commercials, we'll ignore hour long shows for now). That's another 8,075,452.
Encoded at 320x240 15fps mpeg-4 that comes to approximately 197TB. I'm willing to bet a kidney we won't have small form factor hard drives capaple of storing that in less than ten years.
Even if we did, it's a hell of a lot more likely that we'll see higher resolution video on portable devices, or ultra-ultra portable video devices (think thin, like new cell phones), or both.
Using your example, you are therefore saying that some future technology will be capable of holding all the videos that are available in the present.
That is most likely going to be true but it doesn't mean that there will be something that can store all the videos available when that technology exists. Apart from anything else, there is an enormous difference in the size of the files between the diferent time periods in your example.
of course by that time we'll be demanding 360 degree surround sound, surround video with smellovision. ok maybe not the smellovision but we'll think of something to use all that capacity
Firefox Power http://firefoxpower.blogspot.com/
Article:Arora said, by 2012, iPods could launch at similar prices to those on sale now and yet be capable of holding a whole year's worth of video releases. Around 10 years down the line that could be expanded, creating iPods that can hold all the music ever sold commercially.Article, II (emphasis mine):
Any != all. I get the weird feeling that either he's tossing speculation around (most likely), or there was a part skipped in the article, where Arora discusses distribution methods, and how video content will be just as (or more) available in digital format as music is now.
As to his question of "why not" an iPod that can hold all video ever produced (if that is what he was asking), the answer is that there will be no demand for a personal player with that much storage -- and since it will be more expensive than a smaller-storage device that meets the demand for storage volume, the smaller-storge device will win the pricing/distribution war. In light of this, why bother developing an expensive product with little demand?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday. Why? [...] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Lets assume he's saying the iPod video screen resolution stays the same, and that video won't take up any more space. The timeframe he gave was 2012, six years time. In six years time you can expect an iPod to have storage capacity in the terabyte range. For megabyte-per-minute very low quality video one terabyte is only a million minutes, or 10 thousand feature length films. That's enough to store roughly 100 films per year of cinema - when you consider the worldwide cinematic output this is clearly inadequate, it does't even take TV into account.
Look at it another way. 1 terabyte is only enough to store 2 years of a 24-hour news channel's output. All video media? Hardly. You need petabytes of storage at a minimum....
By 2012, you won't have to worry about the video making you ill while riding on a bus or car, because screens will be fast enough to do anti image-stabilization. (my invention) Your iPod will have a G sensor in it, and will compensate for the bouncing so that your brain doesn't get the idea that the image is wonky.
It requires a display bigger than the actual image, and little or no persistence, but it fools your eyes into thinking that the images are being displayed on a motionless screen outside the vehicle.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
This isn't about storage. This isn't about networking. It's about a device specifically designed to do one or two things very, very well, that anyone can use.
That was the spirit of the first Macintosh. But whoops, people don't want a general-purpose computer. They want a toaster. The Mac was supposed to be a data toaster, and as such, performed half-brilliantly (having to swap floppies to move the viewport in MacPaint was a little harsh). Here's the thing: People don't give a damn about data. They're not data processors. They'll never be data processors.
Most people just want the result of the data which is, BAM, every episode of M*A*S*H* there ever was, ever.
Now if Apple could just invent an iPod that did accounting or electronic medical records or manufacturing inventory (and nothing else) we'd be stylin'.
I have 3.25T of space, and have to sometimes delete gigs a day just to get by.
It's NOT enough space, and I have to keep MOST of my media offline. It certainly doesn't hold all the videos in the world, or even all the videos I have ever watched, or even all the videos I intend to watch.
You would need to go past terabytes, petabytes, zetabytes, and probably even exabytes before you could manage ALL THE VIDEO, EVER.
Youtube's all well and good; but not exactly what I'd call an evening's entertainment. If video pricing is anything like music pricing; the limiting factor is income not memory; if you have an iPod with 10000 paid-for tunes (a fraction of the capacity of some), you're looking at the hardware cost being 2% of your total expenditure...
We'd need a radical new system of pricing - quality media very cheap/free; or free at point of download and then paid for when used (perhaps after a few minutes' trial)
Anyway - by the time this is possible, won't downloading be a bit old-fashioned? Isn't google's plan that we do everything online? Wouldn't we be better off with ubuiquitous high speed wireless?
.. because I sure as hell don't need six hundred gigabytes of random footage spliced with various unrelated songs. Think I'm kidding? Do a search on YouTube and half the results that come up are those crap. Of course, bearing in mind that much of the content on youtube is, despite Google's best efforts to remove it, made up of copyrighted material, that may be a good enough reason to keep it off.
Well, maybe all the non-pr0n video. Sure, yeah. That might be possible.
Who do you think is going to be in the best position to host all that video content? ...the 'plex of course.
No seriously. By the time all the crap transfer on, there'll be a whole new set of video created on the net. Seeing as how more and more people are carrying around video cameras and even worse they're making bad movies.
... it'll be cheaper (and in some cases better) entertainment. It'll be funny watching how producing new stuff will be hard because of having to compete with older stuff which will be actively promoted by the corporations owning the content. If you are a large corp that own mad 80's shows .. wouldnt you push those instead of having to pay the costs & risks associated with new shows? The cost to you of providing older shows is only marketing and promotion. Zero in terms of production. I am not saying that new shows won't be produced .. people are always hungry for content that deals with issues of their time .. but they'll just probably not command a huge budget ..since content owners will be afraid to spend the money on risky new show concepts, rather they'll rehash old characters.
..we lose.
I can imagine some people being stuck in the 1980's
There is also another possible extreme. And that is that content owners will make the older content just as expensive as the new content. This way they can make people who want entertainment buy the newer stuff so they can recover their costs. The incentive to make newer stuff of high quality will vanish since the competition from pre-existing content will not exist.
So, I'm torn between the two scenarios. One thing is sure. The quality of new shows will be reduced.
And either way, they win
Eternal copyrights promoting the progress of arts once again.
I really don't see this happening, how can he ever think he'd be able to keep up with all that porn out there?...
The MPAA and RIAA would sue you for pirating every music video and movie ever made, as you would have to be unbelivably rich to buy a copy of all of them. Even if you were, you'd probably be near-broke aftarwords, and the MPAA and RIAA would claim that you owed them $2,000,000 for each song because that's the money they lost when you pirated them.
http://pinopsida.com
How about this? Instead of actually storing all the video on your iPod, maybe someday (soon) we can have access to all of the world's video on Internet (youTube + google video).
There's is no way *ever* that any single device could hold all the world's media at any time. We produce media to fill all avaliable space. When technology creates capacity, a demand is created to use it. Once there was only the home service and the world service on the radio. Even I remember when we there were only four TV channels here, because that was all the bandwidth would allow, now we have cable and digital TV and the selection is ridiculous..
Media expands to fill all avaliable space, that is sum of all the data storage devices around the world. Your iPod model X will always be an insignifacant quotient of that sum, and so will never be able to hold everything. It's as if someone asked "so how much video do you think there is?" - "maybe about a hundred gigs tops".
Please consider the amount of data from the following:
imdb lists 0.8 million titles.
all the bands on last.fm
the million users of flickr with thousands of photos each
all the shit uploaded to youtube everyday
and the thousands of TV channels globally, broadcast 24/7.
They have *no* idea. Production is proportional to capacity.
There's a big difference between the quoted "Any video in the world" to Every video in the world. Be careful what you say. I can hold any video in the world! But just that one.
of storage media is full.
A couple years ago I put in a 120Gig HD in my computer. Imagine my surprise on moving an install of the latest Dawn of War expansion to my drive to get "No space left on device."
I cleaned up crap and managed to fit it in, but on my "to do" list is to install a 250 Gig drive I have laying around. This will no doubt get filled 24 months from now.
And I thought what a vast expanse of storage space I had when I got a 160kB 5 1/4 floppy for my Trash-80 CoCo as a high school graduation present in 1985. I've got source code for personal projects that wouldn't fit on that, now.
By the time we have portable petabyte-sized consumer devices, they'll probably have holographic high definition movies or something like that to eat it up. And storing it on a portable device will probably be a crime carrying a life sentence. :-)
...but will it be able to play Duke Nukem Forever?
Several years ago, an aquaintance of mine argued that I should not go see the Spiderman movie. "You're just wasting your money," he said, "I've already got it downloaded!" (He was like the pusher man, always trying to give you a free fix). After a bit more cajoling, I stepped over to his computer to see what he had. Yup, he had the movie all right. All two square inches of it. Besides confirming my belief that pirates are social ingrates, it also struck home the fact that ultra tiny video resolutions suck.
So back on topic: why the fsck do people watch videos through their microscopic mobile displays? Will iPods eventually come with fresnel lenses? Is this how we will eventually placate the MPAA, by only allowing distribution of videos too small to actually see?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
It will have a battery life of one minute and that length will decay over the next six months.
Bark less. Wag more.
"in as little as just over a decade's time, iPods will be capable of storing 'any video ever produced"
Is this statement the opposite of
"640k Should Be Enough for Anybody.
A normal xvid encoding is about 700mb for a 2 hour film, or 350mb per hour, and that gives DVD like quality. The iPod has a fairly small screen, so we could quite easily downsample it and retain a "watchable" quality (advances in encoding formats will improve this quality or decrease the size).
For now I will assume that 100mb per hour of video would be of "watchable" quality (I'll use metric gb for easy maths).
100mb * 24hours = 2.4gb per day.
2.4gb * 365 days = 876gb per year
Now if we downsample our xvid to 85mb per hour, that works out at 745mb per year and bingo, there are already 750gb hard disk drives on the market, and it is possible to rewire your ipod to use an 3.5" hard disk
So Arora's prediction is correct, but then we already have that technology today. As for me, I'm just waiting for Steve Jobs to announce next year's terabyte iPod
A few things you are missing:
-Journalism
How many accumulated news broadcasts do you think there are? Makeing some gross simplifications, assume there are 1000 stations that create 3 half hour news broadcasts every day and multiply by the number days they've been broadcasting (20 years gives more than 7000 days) and you get a total of over 10 million hours, more than the total you've listed above. Note that my estimates are conservative and the actual may be as much as a couple orders of magnitude more.
-Non-produced video
The above estimates do not include all the video that is recorded but not used in final cuts. The amount of video actually recorded could be 10 times that which is actually used.
-Non-commercial video
Consider other sources of video, such as war footage shot from planes, weather satellites, and security cameras. These types of cameras are constantly rolling in some situations.
-Home movies
There have been at lease several million video cameras sold. Even if each averages only 10 hours of time, that still makes tens of millions of hours.
-Other sources
Other sources also exist, such as cell phone cameras, machiname, flash, etc. Not necessarily a large percentage of the total yet, but increasing every year.
Seeing as all the above have a tremendous backlog and continue to produce more every year, as well as an increasing supply of each, I give very little weight to any statement that claims some future ability to hold all the world's media-it's a moving target that is growing geometrically at a rate that probably exceeds Moore's law.
science is a religion
Were the storage capacity of my next iPod to expand by an order of magnitude, I would take that as an opportunity to convert my album collection to a lossless format, rather than hunt around for all this extra content to stick on there. CDs could be re-encoded without any quality loss. DRM could be stripped from iTMS downloads without any quality loss. Granted, uncompressed video is much larger, but again, it may just be a matter of time.
Add porn, and it will take another order of magnitude more storage!
>If I have a local copy, preferably one unencumbered by DRM, I don't have to worry about someone limiting my access to it.
Exactly. This is why I will never sign up for remotely hosted anything, pretty much.
Too many people are trying to generate "revenue streams" by luring me with the "convenience" of paying for a "service" to access my data. They do this by making it so you don't own or control the data. Once they have enough of your data under their control, they can call all the shots, because it's too painful for you to leave. They can change the terms of service at any time and you just have to pretty much eat it if you want to access "your" data.
Screw that. Soon I'll have the last 50 years of television and music on my hard drive and I'll never have to buy content ever again in my life. Which is exactly what the content producers are afraid of.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
"Have Wikipedia in the head..." ... and History 3.0 will be nothing but the consensus of people with axes to grind.
All your video are belong to iPod
But is that the same as every video ever produced?
And where does that leave Zune?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
but hey if Google says it, then it must be true and Slashdot worthy.
Dumbest.......Idea.......Ever..... Even now, with a 1Gb Ipod Shuffle so small that I could possibly swallow, why would I want 240 songs that I can't physically select to listen to. Or, in ten years, why would I even want every video in the world on an Ipod? I would have to fondle the little click wheel for about 17 minutes while I find the video I want to watch. Just sounds dumb to me.
Moore's Law can be ridden both ways. The most common way is to write bloaty code and develop bloaty systems because memory & CPU keep increasing so you can get away with it. The factor that is considered less often is that Moore's Law also goes in the other direction too. You can now get 32-bit micros with onboard flash, arm, usarts etc for less than a dollar and 8-bit devices for less than 50c. This puts micros into cheap, low-end consumer products like hair driers etc.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
There's been a rash of scare-stories about the ephemeral nature of digital information, how it's less likely to survive 1,000s of years like a papyrus scroll sealed in a jar or inscribed clay tablets have. But most seem to also ignore the multitude of copies that now exist of most things. How many unique copies of valuable information have been lost over time despite being stored on in "permanent" media?
I wouldn't suggest that having 10 milion copies of LonelyGirl around is better for the future than a single copy on a YouTube server. But like the printing press the ability to freely make digital copies not only allow for wider disemination, but will likely result in copies of "unimportant" files surviving long enough to either become important, or at least interesting. 50-60 years from now some kids will find silly old home movies of grandpa on his iPod after he's died. It may be one of him playing with Menthos and Diet Coke, but I bet they'll be happy they found it.
I remember reading an article published in the 80s instructing people not to bother with CDs because they would soon be replaced with solid state devices. Such devices didn't become practicle until flash-based MP3 players came out in the late 90s, yet they still relied on (honest) people to purchase CDs.
Thus, I really do believe that at some point it will be possible to buy an ipod-like device that holds entire archives of video and audio... It just might not be readily available until after I retire!
That being stated, Auther C. Clark did successfully predict a computer capable of storing the world's music collection. (He mentions it in one of the 2000+ books, I think the third one.) Remember that the movie 2001 successfully predicted the World Wide Web and tablet computers in the scene where David reads the morning news on the electronic newspaper. (OK, Tablet computers came out in 2002...)
No, I will not work for your startup
by the way, you're going to love the endless video of me wandering around disneyworld pointing at things.
at 300MiB/42min video (my tipical xvid Lost episode), we have 400MiB/hour, or approximately 204.8 hours of video -- in a 80MiB G5.1 ipod. doing the same math you did, we have 6,553.6 hours of video on my Gen2016 ipod... 30 Simpsons seasons are, for comparison, 231 hours of video!!! This means you could have all seasons to 30 half-hour shows or 15 full-hour shows on your iPod...
This is being VERY conservative, because since 1990, the growth of HDs has been "doubling each 14 months". Redoing the math to reflect that (not-so-conservative estimate):
10 years are almost 9 periods of 14 months, so I'll use 9 --> the capacity of the Gen2016 ipod would be 204.8 * 512 = 104,857.6 hours of video, or approximately 225 * 30 seasons * 22 episodes each for full-hour TV shows. OR 26,214 four-hour-long movies. How many movies were produced till the present day??
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
its more than 200 hours of video!!! each hour of video, at 1000 bps, 30fps, 320x240 quality is 400MiB.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
No one would want "all the worlds video". I have no need for Soap Operas in Chinese or French. But lets assume I live to be 100 and I have a full time, 24x7 gigabit Internet connection. So I download a gigabit per second night and day for 100 years. This works out to 3E20 bytes. Today I can hold 100GB (1E12 bytes) in my hand at an affordable cost.
If storage size double every year then in only 25 years I will have my 1E20 sized device. 25 years is within most of our lifetimes, we can expect to own such a device by 2031. What will you do with a $200 ipod sized device that can store a 100 year long a 24x7 gigabit feed? likely NOT store all the video in the world, but it could store more data then you could ever hope to look at or use. Effectively unlimited storage
Back in 1990 I did an article called 'The Companion: A Very Personal Computer' for a book on nanotechnology. Using mass storage with roughly the storage density of DNA the 'ultimate convergent device' I envisioned kept 1,000,000 TB in a cubic millimeter. If you can record bits on electron spins then of course your density can go much higher.
The very first PC's had only a boot-loader OS. Then DOS's were included, then some applications were bundled, and free demo's of software. Now gigabytes of free junk clog our new computers. Who's to say that in 20 years Sony won't give away its entire catalog to entice hardware sales?
A know-it-all Google employee talking shit about the future again. Western Digital and Seagate can talk about storage technology...Google...just get back to your search engine.
if you want, in 2020 you can buy an iPod with the capacity of all the other works and, as a free gift, you'll be given an iPod with all the 359 versions of Star Wars, even the one where Yoda shoots first!!! :-)
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
What takes a lot of time in moving a video onto an iPod isn't the ripping, but recompressing it to a format that the iPod will play. According to Apple:
If you can rip a DVD and recompress it into a 1.5Mbps H.263 or 2.5Mbps MPEG-4 stream in 2/3rds real time, that's quite impressive.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
...why store locally? Smart caching / syncing will ensure your favourites are available locally on your device / iPod, but why store everything locally? Keep it on a remote server. This will cause less hassle when you lose or damage your device too. Amazed this Google bod was talking the obvious rather than the more imaginative and realistic.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
My terabyte storage device I got at fry's electronics can't even hold all my tv shows, movies, porn and homemade video clips. The iPod and storage in general has a long, long, long way to go before we can boast of anything, especially a small device that clips on to ones shirt or jacket, being able to hold the entire worlds videos. Of course then the world's videos will be increasing too as more and more people take more video.
Sure I suppose the point they were trying to make was that the iPod in 10 years time will be even more uber popular crazy sexy cool than it is now, but really there are better ways to go about saying it. Maybe I'm just being moody today.
Ave Molech Setting
Based on context of the original quote in TFA, I don't think the Google exec meant all the video content in the world, but was referring only to music videos. I'm not exactly sure when the first music video was made (I'm sure Wikipedia could help me here), but I suspect that you could fit the back catalog in less than 100TiB plus a few TiB a year, with good (lossy) compression.
I think the move to high-definition content is going to eat up a lot of this capacity increase, though. 320x240 video seems to be acceptable to a lot of people right now, but I doubt in 10 years that it'll still be viewed as anything but crummy. People are going to want 1080p with six channels of surround, and I don't think you're going to cram that into 1.5Mbps or whatever today's video iPod capacity statistics are based on.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
When I am going to be born again, in the delivery room I want to get from my parents as a 0 year birthday present the MPAA licensed All movies + All videos implant, which can interface with the virtual screen in my brain. I still don't know how the interface will work, but Apple has a few more years to develop it, all I know, is that I would also like to get a mod chip, which allows me to bypass the rating control, which is releasing the age restricted content based on my biological clock.
I think everyone is grossly underestimating. For example last years Major League Baseball games alone would rack up around 400 days worth of _good_ content. Also most large regions (well I don't know about the US) have multiple stations that produce a few hours of their own content daily outside of news (from deeper investigative pieces to documentaries to chat shows to reviews) most of which I would be quite certain would not feature in imdb and the like .In fact about the only overestimation I think I have see yet is your inclusion of footage on the cutting room floor, home movies and other ureleased video footage. While anyone can say "all the video in the world" I think it is safe to say most won't plan on including everyone's first few minutes playing with a new camera, their footage from a birthday party let aloone the truely breathtaking amount of CCTV footage captured worldwide (the UK alone might currently record an estimated 1533 million days of CCTV footage per year (4.2 million cameras and counting) which puts the other figures in perspective).
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
//He said: "In 12 years, why not an iPod that can carry any video ever produced?"
In 12 years, why not any other mp3 player that can carry any video ever produced? Seems like a cheap marketing stunt based on pure speculations.
Subject says it all.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
There is a need for backups. However, they may not be online. In fact if you want them secure they should be in your safe deposit box or something. Having them in your house doesn't save you if your house burns down, for example.
If your backups aren't offsite, then I can't possibly take you seriously. If they are, then never mind :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A few years ago there were wild eyed visions of being able to store the entire world's library, every book ever written on a single portable piece of media, and I'm guessing we've surpassed that point by now.
But a couple of things happened: You can download the Gutenburg books and Wikipedia, but copyright extension will keep tens or hundreds of thousands of 'new' books off your ipod unless you pay for each and every one or a have a subscription scheme (and even then most of those huge number of books are not going to be available). So interpret TFA as not a literal prediction of what might be available but just a illustration of how big storage devices will get. Older slashdotters can probably remember being constantly reminded of how many pages of text could fit on a single floppy disk, today the more appropriate measure of size is video rather than text.
The second thing is that there has been a great increase in the amount of publicly available text on the internet in the form of blogs and similar. The same thing is just beginning to happen with video: the acquisition devices, editing tools, and online sites are just beginning to arrive. Creating and re-editing existing videos from the web will eventually be almost as easy as sending a text message or email or writing a blog entry, and the volume of video on the web will go up dramatically at that point.
That's quite a lot of porn to be carrying about.
Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
They could do it now simply by giving iPods highspeed internet access from anywhere. As internet speeds get faster and faster it will mean we actually need to carry around less and less physical storage... Hell, Even now i can can download a song a lot quicker than it takes to listen to it and that's on regular 4mb braodband.
God Be Gone
[Posting as AC because I work for Google. Somewhat career-limiting perhaps.]
Nikesh Arora is head of European SALES. Not connected AT ALL to the Google Engineering departments. Don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone here is a technical genius. Some are just... well... in sales.
The summary is subtly but importantly wrong; the original article states that Arora makes three claims:
I don't think that the first two of these are particularly contentious, especially as it's pretty clear that he's talking about commercial music and video production, not necessarily "all the video in the world". The third is a little more problematic; the numbers don't quite add up, but I doubt he's wrong my more than a decade or so.
I suspect that his talk was more about throwing out concepts and challenging the audience to think big rather than about making firm predictions. ICBW.
Don't know about movies, but the iPod Invisa will hold every photograph ever taken: http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-6959001532 717637399&q=ipod+snl
-Journalism
How many accumulated news broadcasts do you think there are? Makeing some gross simplifications, assume there are 1000 stations that create 3 half hour news broadcasts every day and multiply by the number days they've been broadcasting (20 years gives more than 7000 days) and you get a total of over 10 million hours, more than the total you've listed above. Note that my estimates are conservative and the actual may be as much as a couple orders of magnitude more.
One.
CNN has been playing it every half hour for 20 years.
it would be wise to ape the development of the internet.
ape is a verb the way sick is a compliment.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I'll finally be able to use my digital camera in RAW video mode...
I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning...
networks with wormholes.
Here's how I use my 60GB video ipod for video. I travel quite a lot, so it's dead easy, powerful and entertaining to fire up my vipod and watch a few old episodes of say Frasier, Seinfeld, Python, or 24.
:) /coralsaw
Currently, I can get 1h of good quality (for the vipod screen size) video in 200MB, so I can fit in around 300h of video (or 150 movies) in with no problem. That's immense by today's standards.
With capacity doubling every 1.5 years, I should expect to fit in all the movies I've ever seen (say 5000 by my calculations) in 16-20 years. Cool, I just hope I have my marbles around by then to enjoy them movies.
<before>now</before>
the internet from South Korea in 1996? Ok, so they called it a pen PC instead of a tablet PC at the time, but the concept was the same.
An article published in March of this year entitled The IPod with every song ever made makes this point and speculates on what this will mean - "musicians will have to earn money the old fashioned way - by playing concerts..." http://www.excal.on.ca/index.php?option=com_conten t&task=view&id=1490&Itemid=53
Aleks Oniszczak
VividPicture.com/aleks