 Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | To Mark Cuban "1. Conflicting Clients . There are a ton of clients, with the number growing all the time. Although they work on basically the same source code and protocols, they all install and operate as if they had exclusive access. They want to control the PC so that they are in charge of what resources are available. When multiple clients are installed on a PC, not only does that create confusion among users, its a "last installed, first in charge" approach. THat approach and lack of respect for other clients will lead to user configuration problems. Thats not going to work. At some point they get considered to be malware and the clients will get uninstalled "
Negative since a company who will be providing the distribution program the consumer/user will download there BT software in order to access the tracker. Although they do work mostly all the same "The Venice Project" actually runs on Azereus and in order to access the content available you need "Azereus" so this point is irrelevant and really dead unless the content provider allowed the customer to choose there own client which clearly will never be accepted on a "pay" service.
"2. End Users dont understand how P2P works, and once they do, they get concerned about giving up bandwidth. Most users dont know how to go in and edit the default settings. So even if they settle on a single client and are happy with just the content available on that network or to that client, they arent going to be happy about their banwidth being in constant use to save a content provider money ."
Customer service exists for a reason and that could be clearly stated in the contract, if customers are not willing to read there contracts that's there own fault and not the companies. Even with just a few seeders at 10K/sec your still getting overall good speeds from the main host itself so bandwidth is consumed by the tracker when needed as a low priority basis and that could be done in a torrent network.
"3. The P2P model of seeding is a HUGE problem for those using wireless broadband with bandwidth constraints or per bit or per minute costs. People are going to wake up and find that they owe Verizon, Sprint, whoever a lot more than they ever thought possible because they installed a client on their Laptops. That could lead to these networks blocking the protocol."
Completely false as nobody expects customers to be using a broadband video download service over a 1xRTT connection and 802.11b speeds are comparable to that of current dsl customers but in this day and age most customers have 802.11G and with the recently announced 802.11N this is hardly an issue. Also that's a provider problem not a service problem, but companies who offer "unlimited data" will give you just that. If customers did not bend over so much they would not be ass raping us with sand paper.
"4. There is a misconception that there is bandwidth savings for the end user. If you want to download a 1gb size file, 1gb of data will be delivered to your PC. There is no savings of bandwidth on the client side. In fact, the client is charged a bandwidth premium because after they have received the entire file, they are asked to particpate in the peering by delivering parts of the file to other users. "
But that also means the price of downloading video and content off the service will be cheaper in theory.
Also your claims of affecting the internet are lame at best, the transfer of video will forever e high unless a super efficient codec was used.
Don't talk crap out of your ass Mark Cuban if you don't know exactly how the crap work's. If you have concerns maybe if you talked to some of the people who run trackers and manage properly you will see your points are really mute.
--
The only limits we have are the one's we set ourselves. |
