how come you don't keep the mambo link on the bottom? I use mambo too, but I think for the feature set and the price (nothing), a link to them is the least I can do...
not that I entirely disagree with you, but he didn't "find" the article, he wrote it. Also, the review is basically a press release and the slashdot link could and frankly should have just linked to the archos site.
That said, at least he didn't get slashdotted, thanks in part to the granparent poster.
in which case, we are all free to choose something other than Microsoft, so why would they get sued for forcing Windows users to have IE on their machines. They could have used OS X or a Linux flavor, right?
where is one supposed to find the roms? I can find 4 of them, all of which I have never heard of. Also, can I play without a gamepad, instead with the keyboard?
one of the biggest reasons mayn don 't switch from Windows to OS X is that it looks and acts differently. And the difference in price for many who are only going to surf the internet, send emails and play poker online.
for a video professional, time is money. If he has the time to build a telepromter instead of just buying one that uses a PDA and comes with appropriate PDA software, he can't be that good at producing video.
They are so cheap, his time SHOULD be worth more than the hours to build one.
That said, he was industrious. Though he built one that is prohibitive to shooting on location. That thing is huge.
The folks who are losing are those who are paying a fee for a fully functioning TIVO. I know that I personally wouldn't mind the ad, but what do I get for the change in the way that my TIVO works? In the mean time, Wired also wrote a snippet where they spoke with TIVO's lawyer about how pay per view content and on demand content that gets recorded to TIVO will be affected by Macrovision's newest technology. You con not indefinitely save said content. It will be erased from your TIVO, like it or not. My next PVR will likely be a MythTV or similarly open sourced offering. TIVO has lost a bit of my respect and hasn't stopped the blood letting ever since they started changing their privacy policy without notice and selling personal viewing information tied to fairly specific demographics.
I don't mind that TIVO does this, but when do TIVO customers start seeing the fruits of their new revenue streams? When does the monthly charge go down? Instead, "TV your way" becomes less and less about a decision on the consumer's part as they force Hollywood's will upon paying customers, remove features and sell you out to those who want to sell to you.
Who is losing here? TIVO with their customer base, is what I bet...
Can we do away with the "Nothing is going to "kill" the iPod" thing? I knew this thread would be riddled with them and voila...first moderated post. Every MP3 player that gets sold that ISN'T an IpOd is an IpOd killer. IpOds may have the most mind share and thus everyone selling within the market is gunning for them. The term "IpOd killer" is a compliment so know when to be graceful, mac-fan-boy.
"Nothing that comes out in the short term is going to be an iPod killer." Did a carnival psychic tell you that?
On the other hand, the cool photos on your website blalance out your close minded views on the MP3 player market.
Next generation cell phones, most of which will have MP3 players built in WILL be the IpOd killer, if a standalone doesn't do it first. Convergence of devices kills off lots of products.
though many of you hate walmart for a bunch of good reasons, if you do not sell your CD in walmart, you can not top the billboard charts. Artists have changed core elements of their music/art because walmart said they wouldn't sell it if they didn't. This might actually lower prices for some independant music resellers, though unlikely. Them walmart will just ask for an even lower price. The fact remains that walmart has such a huge purchasing power, that little stores can not compete.
You should read this article by Ted Turner. Public Access channels are of vital importance because there are so few vehicles for us to get our content out there.
Just like the web, the problem with any media is that just because you create it, doesn't meant they will come. You need to market your content to get eyeballs. Look at Viacom. Look at AOL/Time Warner. They suceed becuase they own the media chain from start to finish. They heavily market their own stuff. Why is there great programing on the History, Discovery, NASA, A&E channels, (I can keep going) and yet it aren't all that popular? Because no one knows about it. If I own ABC, I don't want to let other networks advertise on my air time. I would be cutting off my nose to spite my face, taking in a small pitance to lose eyeballs.
The web DOES have good content, but many use AOL landing pages, Yahoo landing pages, MSN landing pages to find content, which means that just like music and the record labels, you only see what they want you to see. I have trouble veering outside my typical 10 or 20 web pages for lack of thinking of new and random stuff that I would like (somebody build the application that will change the way people surf - again).
The problem is that these days, the indi folks learn how to shoot and edit and try to produce content. What really needs to happen is a concerted effort to work with others who are absolutely necessary to create content that can rival big media. Set designers, makeup artists, actors, script writers, lighting people are all needed in addition to editors and videographers. Don't forget the lack of marketers, pr people, and the inability to take in revenue/advertising dollars that further keeps independant media in a placec that makes the average joe like you think that public access is a load of crap.
I am biased. I work for an aducational tv studio based out of a high school. We graduate students that have more skills than any college student I have seen working in video. We have univerisites coming to see how we have our studio and editing lab setup, taking notes so they know how they are supposed to do it. We broadcast out locally over 2 cable channels and are currently converting all of our content for web. We are lucky that bandwidth isnt really a problem, a luxury that few other independant content creators have.
On a side note, anyone know how to write an application that will act as a local client to download and cache video content for on demand viewing? I might be able to make you famous.
Sorry, I thought you were saying you wanted to start your own channel. I mean, you must have equiptment and talent and time all of which you can give up for free. If you want to do this AFTER you are a student, then you need to get money for it unless your parent's basement is your bedroom AND your studio.
I assume you read the article, so you saw the part where he said that anyone can produce content like a network, you just need all of the elements done right. You ocan not do that and output content without an investment. That investment can be from your pocket or someone elses. So why WOULDN'T you try to get grants or something? If you are serious about doing this long term, you will need a revenue stream. I can tell you haven't done this for long or funds would be of greater importance to you.
but the nature of the modern day p2p network is that there can be nodes disconnected from each other serving the same content. You might not see the true number of the streams unless there is a tool to collect said stats and combine them.
What happens when someone truncates your file name and continues to serve your content? What happens if someone changes your content and serves it under your file name?
Unless you control the flow of your video, how can you truly account for its effectiveness? A lot of people will watch and never post on your message boards. Not to say they still wont be of importance, but to truly move to a state of profit, you need sponsorship fo some sort. They will undoubtedly want to know everything about who sees their content. The more information you can provide them with proof of delivery, the more comfortable any patron will feel about cooperating, budget-wise.
I am not saying that p2p wont work. It does, but without tracking, which the content providers or their sponsors want. Build THAT into p2p and you get the tv/film/record industry interest. But then it takes away the user base that does more questionable thins with their p2p clients.
I mean really, the lousiest thing about P2P after Napster and other centrally located server-peer-peer services got wiped out. But where does that bring you? To distribution of content with no statistics gathered. I don't care where on the ladder of the content builders you are at, if you can't back up your claims of percentage of the market, then you eventually lose all funding. Even grant givers want to give to someone who will likely be sucessful so that their name comes out somewhere. Its still a business and the ones who will win will be the ones who provide a usable experience. There are services that are close.
not that you were insinuating this, but most posts in this topic keep talking like streaming is the way to go. The entire industry is moving to an on-demand model and streaming is not really what you want to do with video or film content. Progressive downloads is the current way to go with cached (pre downloaded) video being where things are going to go, imo...
ESPN's Motion was supposed to become open source, but there was no way that Disney is going to let that happen.
i think the way that ESPN and A&E distribute their content is brilliant. Subscription based and cached. File sizes are large, but it doesn't matter. What does matter is that the content itself is of superior quality.
Anyone know of an open source client/server architecture that will allow for content to be cached on the user's hard drive on a subscription basis? ESPNs was supposed to be open source, but it looks like they held off (not that I hold it against them) and A&E use a third party company which insists on hosting the content at a premium rate. I understand why most contnet producers would not want to take on the burden of delivery, but I work for an educational tv station (2 channels) and we have PLENTY of bandwidth...
Slashdot Mirror
how come you don't keep the mambo link on the bottom? I use mambo too, but I think for the feature set and the price (nothing), a link to them is the least I can do...
I have seen:
ibetyouwantin, assholeswithbeepinghorns, weallloveeachother, callforpermission (with a phone number afterwards)
after reasing you comment, I looked back and tried to find the word "review" somewhere in the Slashdot introduction and couldn't find it.
It is news and this would seem the only way for me to retract my statement. I don't have a problem with what your site posted.
My mistake.
not that I entirely disagree with you, but he didn't "find" the article, he wrote it. Also, the review is basically a press release and the slashdot link could and frankly should have just linked to the archos site.
That said, at least he didn't get slashdotted, thanks in part to the granparent poster.
in which case, we are all free to choose something other than Microsoft, so why would they get sued for forcing Windows users to have IE on their machines. They could have used OS X or a Linux flavor, right?
which solves the distribution problem that used to kill independant productions before they started
I work at an educational TV station which could easily produce a show like this. I just need show ideas - anyone???
you can record Firewire out of your cable box into OS X
where is one supposed to find the roms? I can find 4 of them, all of which I have never heard of. Also, can I play without a gamepad, instead with the keyboard?
about US $250
one of the biggest reasons mayn don 't switch from Windows to OS X is that it looks and acts differently. And the difference in price for many who are only going to surf the internet, send emails and play poker online.
for a video professional, time is money. If he has the time to build a telepromter instead of just buying one that uses a PDA and comes with appropriate PDA software, he can't be that good at producing video.
They are so cheap, his time SHOULD be worth more than the hours to build one.
That said, he was industrious. Though he built one that is prohibitive to shooting on location. That thing is huge.
where and how do I get one?
Mybe he can get a job at NetZero
Internet 2 says it wants fight Web 2 at the flag pole after school.
This isn't just a good idea for Google, but the TV industry in general.
you were modded as funny, but there is merrit to the idea.
The folks who are losing are those who are paying a fee for a fully functioning TIVO. I know that I personally wouldn't mind the ad, but what do I get for the change in the way that my TIVO works? In the mean time, Wired also wrote a snippet where they spoke with TIVO's lawyer about how pay per view content and on demand content that gets recorded to TIVO will be affected by Macrovision's newest technology. You con not indefinitely save said content. It will be erased from your TIVO, like it or not. My next PVR will likely be a MythTV or similarly open sourced offering. TIVO has lost a bit of my respect and hasn't stopped the blood letting ever since they started changing their privacy policy without notice and selling personal viewing information tied to fairly specific demographics.
I don't mind that TIVO does this, but when do TIVO customers start seeing the fruits of their new revenue streams? When does the monthly charge go down? Instead, "TV your way" becomes less and less about a decision on the consumer's part as they force Hollywood's will upon paying customers, remove features and sell you out to those who want to sell to you.
Who is losing here? TIVO with their customer base, is what I bet...
my bad - I over reacted
Can we do away with the "Nothing is going to "kill" the iPod" thing? I knew this thread would be riddled with them and voila...first moderated post. Every MP3 player that gets sold that ISN'T an IpOd is an IpOd killer. IpOds may have the most mind share and thus everyone selling within the market is gunning for them. The term "IpOd killer" is a compliment so know when to be graceful, mac-fan-boy.
"Nothing that comes out in the short term is going to be an iPod killer." Did a carnival psychic tell you that?
On the other hand, the cool photos on your website blalance out your close minded views on the MP3 player market.
Next generation cell phones, most of which will have MP3 players built in WILL be the IpOd killer, if a standalone doesn't do it first. Convergence of devices kills off lots of products.
though many of you hate walmart for a bunch of good reasons, if you do not sell your CD in walmart, you can not top the billboard charts. Artists have changed core elements of their music/art because walmart said they wouldn't sell it if they didn't. This might actually lower prices for some independant music resellers, though unlikely. Them walmart will just ask for an even lower price. The fact remains that walmart has such a huge purchasing power, that little stores can not compete.
You should read this article by Ted Turner. Public Access channels are of vital importance because there are so few vehicles for us to get our content out there.
Just like the web, the problem with any media is that just because you create it, doesn't meant they will come. You need to market your content to get eyeballs. Look at Viacom. Look at AOL/Time Warner. They suceed becuase they own the media chain from start to finish. They heavily market their own stuff. Why is there great programing on the History, Discovery, NASA, A&E channels, (I can keep going) and yet it aren't all that popular? Because no one knows about it. If I own ABC, I don't want to let other networks advertise on my air time. I would be cutting off my nose to spite my face, taking in a small pitance to lose eyeballs.
The web DOES have good content, but many use AOL landing pages, Yahoo landing pages, MSN landing pages to find content, which means that just like music and the record labels, you only see what they want you to see. I have trouble veering outside my typical 10 or 20 web pages for lack of thinking of new and random stuff that I would like (somebody build the application that will change the way people surf - again).
The problem is that these days, the indi folks learn how to shoot and edit and try to produce content. What really needs to happen is a concerted effort to work with others who are absolutely necessary to create content that can rival big media. Set designers, makeup artists, actors, script writers, lighting people are all needed in addition to editors and videographers. Don't forget the lack of marketers, pr people, and the inability to take in revenue/advertising dollars that further keeps independant media in a placec that makes the average joe like you think that public access is a load of crap.
I am biased. I work for an aducational tv studio based out of a high school. We graduate students that have more skills than any college student I have seen working in video. We have univerisites coming to see how we have our studio and editing lab setup, taking notes so they know how they are supposed to do it. We broadcast out locally over 2 cable channels and are currently converting all of our content for web. We are lucky that bandwidth isnt really a problem, a luxury that few other independant content creators have.
On a side note, anyone know how to write an application that will act as a local client to download and cache video content for on demand viewing? I might be able to make you famous.
Sorry, I thought you were saying you wanted to start your own channel. I mean, you must have equiptment and talent and time all of which you can give up for free. If you want to do this AFTER you are a student, then you need to get money for it unless your parent's basement is your bedroom AND your studio.
I assume you read the article, so you saw the part where he said that anyone can produce content like a network, you just need all of the elements done right. You ocan not do that and output content without an investment. That investment can be from your pocket or someone elses. So why WOULDN'T you try to get grants or something? If you are serious about doing this long term, you will need a revenue stream. I can tell you haven't done this for long or funds would be of greater importance to you.
but the nature of the modern day p2p network is that there can be nodes disconnected from each other serving the same content. You might not see the true number of the streams unless there is a tool to collect said stats and combine them.
What happens when someone truncates your file name and continues to serve your content? What happens if someone changes your content and serves it under your file name?
Unless you control the flow of your video, how can you truly account for its effectiveness? A lot of people will watch and never post on your message boards. Not to say they still wont be of importance, but to truly move to a state of profit, you need sponsorship fo some sort. They will undoubtedly want to know everything about who sees their content. The more information you can provide them with proof of delivery, the more comfortable any patron will feel about cooperating, budget-wise.
I am not saying that p2p wont work. It does, but without tracking, which the content providers or their sponsors want. Build THAT into p2p and you get the tv/film/record industry interest. But then it takes away the user base that does more questionable thins with their p2p clients.
I mean really, the lousiest thing about P2P after Napster and other centrally located server-peer-peer services got wiped out. But where does that bring you? To distribution of content with no statistics gathered. I don't care where on the ladder of the content builders you are at, if you can't back up your claims of percentage of the market, then you eventually lose all funding. Even grant givers want to give to someone who will likely be sucessful so that their name comes out somewhere. Its still a business and the ones who will win will be the ones who provide a usable experience. There are services that are close.
not that you were insinuating this, but most posts in this topic keep talking like streaming is the way to go. The entire industry is moving to an on-demand model and streaming is not really what you want to do with video or film content. Progressive downloads is the current way to go with cached (pre downloaded) video being where things are going to go, imo...
ESPN's Motion was supposed to become open source, but there was no way that Disney is going to let that happen.
i think the way that ESPN and A&E distribute their content is brilliant. Subscription based and cached. File sizes are large, but it doesn't matter. What does matter is that the content itself is of superior quality.
Anyone know of an open source client/server architecture that will allow for content to be cached on the user's hard drive on a subscription basis? ESPNs was supposed to be open source, but it looks like they held off (not that I hold it against them) and A&E use a third party company which insists on hosting the content at a premium rate. I understand why most contnet producers would not want to take on the burden of delivery, but I work for an educational tv station (2 channels) and we have PLENTY of bandwidth...