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.'"
Yes, but we'll be stuck watching it on those teeny tiny screens.
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.
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.
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
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.
"I think that enough space to hold all the world's video should be enough for everyone"
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)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I remember the olden days when we called that "getting an education."
It used to be doctors personally knew about all the drugs you could give a person. Nowadays we have the PDR, and we don't think doctors are worse for it.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I spend three hours a day commuting on trains to/from Chicago. At this point, I would estimate that 65% of "regulars" (i.e. monthly ticket holders) are using iPods or portable CD players. Another 25% are reading (newspapers, novels, the Bible). Only about 10% actually talk to each other. The rest of us hate them and wish they'd STFU.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Seriously though, do they realize how many anime tentical rape videos are out there???
blah
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
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
.. 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.
Add porn, and it will take another order of magnitude more storage!
I completely agree. Local storage is a temporary solution to the problem of not enough bandwidth. Latency is often an issue too, and a local cache is good, but why bother storing all the music ever if I will only ever listen to 0.001% of it? Just stream me the tracks I want, when I want them. That way, my collection will never go out of date.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
If by "beautiful" you mean Analog NTSC Composite Video, then I suppose you're right.
Pity they don't have Firewire or some other digital output...course the MPAA would never allow that. Lord, no.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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.'"