As far as the whole 9 yards goes, I've just re-instated a landline number after attempting to live without one for the last 2 months. Why? Because suddenly my mobile bills rocketed! I live in the UK and make a lot of calls to Ireland, Australia, continental Europe and the US. These aren't business calls, these are personal calls to friends around the world. Going back to a landline is a whole lot cheaper in these cases.
Yes, I could have purchased a cheap rate call card and used that from my mobile, however this still meant my overseas friends needed to call my mobile number, so more expensive for them.
Yes, I could have used a VOIP service, and indeed some of my friends have Skype accounts and we do communicate that way. However, many of my friends are not tethered to their computers all day/night or own a fancy pants mobile phone that allows one to install Skype.
Overall I figured that if I wanted the whole 9 yards, including the ability to phone overseas cheaply and have my friends phone me cheaply as well, having a landline number was a better option.
As far as I know, the only H.264 encoder that is regularly superior to x264 is the offering from MainConcept. Read the Fifth Annual MSU Codec comparison, recently published in May 2009.
For quality comparisons, x264 and MainConcept are clearly the best options, with MainConcept slightly ahead. However, on speed, x264 is quite slow. It depends what it more important to you. For me, it's quality and I'll take the speed hit. x264 is truly fighting it out with the commercial products for market leadership.
While the article summary is, strictly speaking, probably correct in stating that "x264 is NOT the best encoder around", it is pretty damn close to being the best H.264 encoder around, and clearly better than its rivals in some areas.
I think we'll see a lot more announcements like this in the next 2 weeks - other Studios and TV Broadcasters putting long form content on YouTube, laden with advertising to generate revenue. The adverts will be pre-roll, mid-roll and possibly post-roll as well.
I also prophesise that YouTube/Google will not understand broadcast timecodes and will require everything in simple seconds, to two decimal places. Why do they need timecodes? To know where to insert the advertising of course. Will users be able to skip the advertising mid-roll? Not a chance. And what problems will timecodes in seconds, with two decimal places, create? I believe we'll see adverts inserted at the incorrect places as different frame rates between PAL, NTSC and film content are not taken into account, or ad breaks that are placed in content at obvious points like fades/transitions/mixes (whatever you'd like to call them) will be a few frames incorrect, so the transition will happen slightly before or after the ad break.
I also predict that YouTube won't really understand about TV resolution and will request everything at 640x480 frame size, rather than say 720x576 for PAL. I predict they may also have problems dealing with Full Height Anamorphic content, but of course that's just a hunch.
Don't ask me how I know, just looking into my crystal ball you understand.......
Essentially I agree with you. I generally try to checkout the source and build x264 on a monthly basis.
I guess I was just picking up on your comment that the MainConcept H.264 encoder "still lags behind" x264. Historically, it hasn't lagged behind. They've both been very close for some time, in terms of speed and quality.
I'm looking forward to a more up to date comparison, and I hope x264 comes out a clear winner.
I'm big supporter, and user, of x264, but I always thought MainConcept was the slightly better H.264 codec.
This codec comparison is a year old now, but I've always used these generally yearly tests as a yard stick. MainConcept and X264 are the clear winners, with MainConcept probably slightly ahead overall. If you're short on time, just start reading at page 30.
You must be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV. It makes no difference what equipment you use - whether it's a laptop, PC, mobile phone, digital box, DVD recorder or a TV set - you still need a licence.
You do not need a TV Licence to view video clips on the internet, as long as what you are viewing is not being shown on TV at the same time as you are viewing it.
If you use a digital box with a hi-fi system, or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you don't install or use any other TV receiving equipment, you don't need a TV Licence.
It's not the "new management" turning evil. eBay management has been trying to screw the seller for years now.
I worked for eBay from 1999 to 2002. The first two years were great, the last year wasn't so great. Things changed. Internally, the organisation went from being a relatively agile, community focused and dynamic online destination to one that seemed to care more about the share price, and therefore revenues/profits, than the community of buyers and sellers.
So, in my view, the situation has been like this for at least the last 5 years.
I have a feedback rating of 1000+, all positive, I'd estimate 75% of that is from selling. However, I stopped selling, cancelled my "Pro Account", or whatever they call it now, and just use it to buy the occasional thing now. The fees really do cut into profits, to the point where I was still making an on paper profit from the items I was selling, but if I factored in the time I spent photographing, listing and posting items, it just wasn't worth the effort anymore.
The most interesting quote in this short blog post is at the end:
"This isn't yet a project that TV viewers will see and it's never going to replace the BBC's consumer offerings (e.g. iPlayer); it's a test bed for new ideas, allowing us to collaborate with colleagues across Europe, and to hone and develop technology which could help shape the TV of tomorrow."
The Apple IIc was the first computer I ever put my greasy little fingers on. I learned to create some Basic games from books - oh how I miss Goto 10.
The picture in the article of Ultima IV takes me back. So many hours of my early teens lost playing that, Castle Wolfenstein and The Bard's Tale. I was addicted to the Bard's Tale, the glorious green screen of it!
Who else remembers making 5 1/4 inch disks double sided! Hell yeah. How cool was that. A pair of scissors or hole punch and suddenly you had twice as much storage!
Meraki is the other company I was thinking of. Like FON, they supply wireless hardware with the express aim of you sharing your connection. The Meraki stuff looks quite good too in terms of having an extended connectivity range.
There are already a number of organisations/initiatives around that actively encourage you to purchase their wireless routing products and then open up access to everyone.
I'm a member of FON, which allows you to allocate a specific amount of bandwidth for sharing if you're using one of their routers - say 1MB of your 8MB ADSL, which neatly overcomes the first poster's issue of not having enough bandwidth for their own nefarious purposes. After being a member of FON for 12 months they actually sent me three free wireless routers at Christmas, which I gave away to friends hoping that they too will join and share bandwidth.
There's another company I heard about, US based, that does something similar, but I can't think of their name right now.
However, I wonder about my ISP's stance regarding sharing WiFi for free with others. Does it violate their Ts&Cs? Do I care enough to actually find out? No!
I just wrote some first impressions regarding my new iPhone. The inability to remove both the YouTube and Stocks icons is my biggest annoyance so far. Now I have even more reason to be rid of Stocks! Guess I'm going to have to void my warranty after all....
I am obviously in the minority of users who pay for Skype services. I live in the UK and my family is in Australia. Using Skype-Out at a rate of around £0.1/minute is significantly cheaper than any comparable Telecom or other "cheap calls" organisation. I know quite a few other people who use Skype in the same manner. I spend around £5 per month on Skype.
Now in comparison, I spend somewhere between £50-£90 per month on my mobile phone. The amount largely depends on whether I've traveled out of the UK that month. With wider adoption of VoIP services on mobile devices, for sure my cell phone bill would drop and a portion of the money would siphon across to my Skype account.
The final thing holding me back from spending more on Skype is the expense and poor quality of the "phone" devices available. I spent £100 about a year ago on a Skype Wi-Fi phone. No need to have anything connected to my computer, the phone's base unit was supposed to connect directly to my wireless router and behold, I have Skype calls very easily. Unfortunately, after waiting almost a month for my order to be fulfilled, within 3 weeks the phone unit died. I gave up trying to get a refund from Skype and trashed the thing. So far I've been reluctant to spend a similar amount on a device that may die again quickly and have to deal with Skype customer service.
I run a moderate sized niche video website that focuses on motorcycle related content - http://www.kapitalmototv.com
Prior to launch we discussed long and hard what video codec and format to go with. In the end we decided on H.264 encoded QuickTime files with AAC audio. Primarily we made this choice so that we were offering higher quality video than was available on the likes of YouTube, while understandably taking a hit on the QuickTime install base when compare to Flash.
Now, this recent Flash development could be a good thing in the sense that all our existing H.264 files can now be used in the new Flash Player, which would significantly increase the install base for users who can view our content.
However, if YouTube starts offering H.264 files, and thus increasing quality, where to now to provide a compelling differentiator for Kapital Moto TV?
Of course we still have the niche content, editorial control over the content and an existing userbase, but for all intents and purposes YouTube has caught up when it comes to viewing experience.
Do we simply start offering larger resolution files? 640x480 for example. What are the other differentiating options?
Sorry to shatter your illusions, but MotoGP bikes are nothing like what's available on the street. Not even close! Apart from a limit on engine capacity (800cc) and the number of sets of tyres that can be used per weekend, everything else is completely open for change. You may see MotoGP replica bikes on the street, but you'll never be able to buy retail a bike approaching MotoGP engineering levels. Over time, MotoGP innovations make it into street bikes for sure, but it's a long process.
If you want bikes that approach those available in showrooms, then watch World Superbikes. These bikes have to pass homologation rules before they're allowed to race in this class.
If it's a wet race, such as this past weekend at Le Mans, the riders are allowed to make a pitstop to change bikes, so they can ride on wet tyres rather than slicks.
I do however, agree with your implied compliment to MotoGP. It is a very entertaining form of motorsport.
Really, it's up to the submitter of this article to read the thing first!
From the article you will note that one of the entertainment channels will be a "public service" channel with no advertising. It will only show clips and short features.
The other entertainment channel will be run by BBC Worldwide, a wholly owned COMMERCIAL SUBSIDIARY of the public service BBC. This channel will be funder by advertising. It is worth noting that all BBC Worldwide profits are put directly back into the BBC, thus reducing the need to heavily increase the license fee. BBC Americas, for example, is part of BBC Worldwide. Do you watch any BBC programmes in a country other than the UK? Then these programmes have been licensed for broadcast by BBC Worldwide, and the money goes back into the BBC. If I recall, BBC Worldwide put £89million back into the BBC last financial year.
The news channel will have advertising on the page, which is fine, as it means non-UK residents are in fact "paying" to view BBC content. If UK residents want advert free BBC news content, just go to the BBC news website - http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Frankly, I don't see what is controversial about this deal at all - despite what the submitter or other media companies might say.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as the whole 9 yards goes, I've just re-instated a landline number after attempting to live without one for the last 2 months. Why? Because suddenly my mobile bills rocketed! I live in the UK and make a lot of calls to Ireland, Australia, continental Europe and the US. These aren't business calls, these are personal calls to friends around the world. Going back to a landline is a whole lot cheaper in these cases.
Yes, I could have purchased a cheap rate call card and used that from my mobile, however this still meant my overseas friends needed to call my mobile number, so more expensive for them.
Yes, I could have used a VOIP service, and indeed some of my friends have Skype accounts and we do communicate that way. However, many of my friends are not tethered to their computers all day/night or own a fancy pants mobile phone that allows one to install Skype.
Overall I figured that if I wanted the whole 9 yards, including the ability to phone overseas cheaply and have my friends phone me cheaply as well, having a landline number was a better option.
Can you post a link to the discussion please?
As far as I know, the only H.264 encoder that is regularly superior to x264 is the offering from MainConcept. Read the Fifth Annual MSU Codec comparison, recently published in May 2009.
For quality comparisons, x264 and MainConcept are clearly the best options, with MainConcept slightly ahead. However, on speed, x264 is quite slow. It depends what it more important to you. For me, it's quality and I'll take the speed hit. x264 is truly fighting it out with the commercial products for market leadership.
While the article summary is, strictly speaking, probably correct in stating that "x264 is NOT the best encoder around", it is pretty damn close to being the best H.264 encoder around, and clearly better than its rivals in some areas.
I also prophesise that YouTube/Google will not understand broadcast timecodes and will require everything in simple seconds, to two decimal places. Why do they need timecodes? To know where to insert the advertising of course. Will users be able to skip the advertising mid-roll? Not a chance. And what problems will timecodes in seconds, with two decimal places, create? I believe we'll see adverts inserted at the incorrect places as different frame rates between PAL, NTSC and film content are not taken into account, or ad breaks that are placed in content at obvious points like fades/transitions/mixes (whatever you'd like to call them) will be a few frames incorrect, so the transition will happen slightly before or after the ad break.
I also predict that YouTube won't really understand about TV resolution and will request everything at 640x480 frame size, rather than say 720x576 for PAL. I predict they may also have problems dealing with Full Height Anamorphic content, but of course that's just a hunch.
Don't ask me how I know, just looking into my crystal ball you understand.......
Essentially I agree with you. I generally try to checkout the source and build x264 on a monthly basis.
I guess I was just picking up on your comment that the MainConcept H.264 encoder "still lags behind" x264. Historically, it hasn't lagged behind. They've both been very close for some time, in terms of speed and quality.
I'm looking forward to a more up to date comparison, and I hope x264 comes out a clear winner.
I'm seeing more embedded Flash players for this type of activity. (NSFW)
The Flash player supports H.264 in the standard MP4 container, not only in the old FLV container.
And in a MOV container.
I'm big supporter, and user, of x264, but I always thought MainConcept was the slightly better H.264 codec.
This codec comparison is a year old now, but I've always used these generally yearly tests as a yard stick. MainConcept and X264 are the clear winners, with MainConcept probably slightly ahead overall. If you're short on time, just start reading at page 30.
You must be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV. It makes no difference what equipment you use - whether it's a laptop, PC, mobile phone, digital box, DVD recorder or a TV set - you still need a licence.
You do not need a TV Licence to view video clips on the internet, as long as what you are viewing is not being shown on TV at the same time as you are viewing it.
If you use a digital box with a hi-fi system, or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you don't install or use any other TV receiving equipment, you don't need a TV Licence.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp
No sex please, we're British!
Here's a video of the flight from the BBC:
Yep, Australia has been a testing ground for a long time now -
Maralinga Nuclear Tests
It's not the "new management" turning evil. eBay management has been trying to screw the seller for years now.
I worked for eBay from 1999 to 2002. The first two years were great, the last year wasn't so great. Things changed. Internally, the organisation went from being a relatively agile, community focused and dynamic online destination to one that seemed to care more about the share price, and therefore revenues/profits, than the community of buyers and sellers.
So, in my view, the situation has been like this for at least the last 5 years.
I have a feedback rating of 1000+, all positive, I'd estimate 75% of that is from selling. However, I stopped selling, cancelled my "Pro Account", or whatever they call it now, and just use it to buy the occasional thing now. The fees really do cut into profits, to the point where I was still making an on paper profit from the items I was selling, but if I factored in the time I spent photographing, listing and posting items, it just wasn't worth the effort anymore.
And the project's homepage (Flash based):
http://www.p2p-next.org/
For a little more information, here's a BBC announcement about P2P-Next last week:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/02/p2p_next.html
The most interesting quote in this short blog post is at the end:
"This isn't yet a project that TV viewers will see and it's never going to replace the BBC's consumer offerings (e.g. iPlayer); it's a test bed for new ideas, allowing us to collaborate with colleagues across Europe, and to hone and develop technology which could help shape the TV of tomorrow."
The Apple IIc was the first computer I ever put my greasy little fingers on. I learned to create some Basic games from books - oh how I miss Goto 10.
The picture in the article of Ultima IV takes me back. So many hours of my early teens lost playing that, Castle Wolfenstein and The Bard's Tale. I was addicted to the Bard's Tale, the glorious green screen of it!
Who else remembers making 5 1/4 inch disks double sided! Hell yeah. How cool was that. A pair of scissors or hole punch and suddenly you had twice as much storage!
Meraki is the other company I was thinking of. Like FON, they supply wireless hardware with the express aim of you sharing your connection. The Meraki stuff looks quite good too in terms of having an extended connectivity range.
There are already a number of organisations/initiatives around that actively encourage you to purchase their wireless routing products and then open up access to everyone.
I'm a member of FON, which allows you to allocate a specific amount of bandwidth for sharing if you're using one of their routers - say 1MB of your 8MB ADSL, which neatly overcomes the first poster's issue of not having enough bandwidth for their own nefarious purposes. After being a member of FON for 12 months they actually sent me three free wireless routers at Christmas, which I gave away to friends hoping that they too will join and share bandwidth.
There's another company I heard about, US based, that does something similar, but I can't think of their name right now.
However, I wonder about my ISP's stance regarding sharing WiFi for free with others. Does it violate their Ts&Cs? Do I care enough to actually find out? No!
There's a few services out there already using the latest Flash player and H264 content: http://www.kapitalmototv.co.uk/flash/
Here's a Nokia n810 and Asus Eee comparison:
http://www.ultramobilegeek.com/2007/11/asus-eee-701-vs-nokia-n810-linux-fight.html
I just wrote some first impressions regarding my new iPhone. The inability to remove both the YouTube and Stocks icons is my biggest annoyance so far. Now I have even more reason to be rid of Stocks! Guess I'm going to have to void my warranty after all....
I am obviously in the minority of users who pay for Skype services. I live in the UK and my family is in Australia. Using Skype-Out at a rate of around £0.1/minute is significantly cheaper than any comparable Telecom or other "cheap calls" organisation. I know quite a few other people who use Skype in the same manner. I spend around £5 per month on Skype.
Now in comparison, I spend somewhere between £50-£90 per month on my mobile phone. The amount largely depends on whether I've traveled out of the UK that month. With wider adoption of VoIP services on mobile devices, for sure my cell phone bill would drop and a portion of the money would siphon across to my Skype account.
The final thing holding me back from spending more on Skype is the expense and poor quality of the "phone" devices available. I spent £100 about a year ago on a Skype Wi-Fi phone. No need to have anything connected to my computer, the phone's base unit was supposed to connect directly to my wireless router and behold, I have Skype calls very easily. Unfortunately, after waiting almost a month for my order to be fulfilled, within 3 weeks the phone unit died. I gave up trying to get a refund from Skype and trashed the thing. So far I've been reluctant to spend a similar amount on a device that may die again quickly and have to deal with Skype customer service.
Prior to launch we discussed long and hard what video codec and format to go with. In the end we decided on H.264 encoded QuickTime files with AAC audio. Primarily we made this choice so that we were offering higher quality video than was available on the likes of YouTube, while understandably taking a hit on the QuickTime install base when compare to Flash.
Now, this recent Flash development could be a good thing in the sense that all our existing H.264 files can now be used in the new Flash Player, which would significantly increase the install base for users who can view our content.
However, if YouTube starts offering H.264 files, and thus increasing quality, where to now to provide a compelling differentiator for Kapital Moto TV?
Of course we still have the niche content, editorial control over the content and an existing userbase, but for all intents and purposes YouTube has caught up when it comes to viewing experience.
Do we simply start offering larger resolution files? 640x480 for example. What are the other differentiating options?
Sorry to shatter your illusions, but MotoGP bikes are nothing like what's available on the street. Not even close! Apart from a limit on engine capacity (800cc) and the number of sets of tyres that can be used per weekend, everything else is completely open for change. You may see MotoGP replica bikes on the street, but you'll never be able to buy retail a bike approaching MotoGP engineering levels. Over time, MotoGP innovations make it into street bikes for sure, but it's a long process.
If you want bikes that approach those available in showrooms, then watch World Superbikes. These bikes have to pass homologation rules before they're allowed to race in this class.
If it's a wet race, such as this past weekend at Le Mans, the riders are allowed to make a pitstop to change bikes, so they can ride on wet tyres rather than slicks.
I do however, agree with your implied compliment to MotoGP. It is a very entertaining form of motorsport.
Really, it's up to the submitter of this article to read the thing first!
From the article you will note that one of the entertainment channels will be a "public service" channel with no advertising. It will only show clips and short features.
The other entertainment channel will be run by BBC Worldwide, a wholly owned COMMERCIAL SUBSIDIARY of the public service BBC. This channel will be funder by advertising. It is worth noting that all BBC Worldwide profits are put directly back into the BBC, thus reducing the need to heavily increase the license fee. BBC Americas, for example, is part of BBC Worldwide. Do you watch any BBC programmes in a country other than the UK? Then these programmes have been licensed for broadcast by BBC Worldwide, and the money goes back into the BBC. If I recall, BBC Worldwide put £89million back into the BBC last financial year.
The news channel will have advertising on the page, which is fine, as it means non-UK residents are in fact "paying" to view BBC content. If UK residents want advert free BBC news content, just go to the BBC news website - http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Frankly, I don't see what is controversial about this deal at all - despite what the submitter or other media companies might say.