AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß | reply to RadioDoc
Re: Google video on your TV?
Tell it like it is! |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | reply to RadioDoc
What would Frank Say?
Frank would say; "You are where you is"  |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to N3OGH
Re: Google video on your TV?
They got better until about 1999. Since then it's been a steady slide into mediocrity. Most people these days wouldn't know quality if it fell on their heads.
Half second latency in a conversation is not a conversation. Square waves are not conducive to intelligibility. "NO SERVICE" that displays half the time outside a metro area is just that...no service.
I'm glad you're happy. I remember what decent service was like.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
The Buck Starts Here. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc  :said by peter_m :...by it's very nature all technology tends to get better over time. You could easily argue that cell phones have gotten progressively worse. Until someone figures out how to reliably broadcast even 640x480 video over the public Internet in real time, this will continue to be nothing but a toy. Opening up a separate high-quality (never mind HD) stream for every viewer is insanely wasteful. Ask the cable companies...they're trying to push program origination closer to the sub precisely because of this issue, and that is on a very small scale compared to an iTV-type operation. Um, cell phones have definitely gotten better.
In 1992 I had a "portable" brick phone that was actually bigger than a 5 pound brick. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. Usually didn't work indoors anywhere. Service was $60/mo with about 60 minuets "included" air time.
Now, I have a cell phone that works just about everywhere, It's smaller than my wallet (and the battery lasts 3X as long). I get 500 minuets a month for about $40....
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to peter_m
Ad-driven? Are you serious?
Listen to all the whining and screeching about ads online just at this website. Read the convoluted measures some take to keep ads from inflicting themselves upon their retinas.
Voice chat? Yet another toy.
Startup funds are irrelevant to long term viability. This has to make money as an ongoing operation, and the environment for any ad-supported "free" service on the Internet is extremely hostile. You won't be re-investing negative profits...and at some point that startup money wants its due.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
The Buck Starts Here. |
|
peter_m
Premium
join:2005-07-13
Canada, QC
1 edit | reply to RadioDoc
Ok so we do agree on allot of things. But I don't think the money is an issue in the sense that there is already money pumped into it. Part of any profit margin is always re-invested into the business to maintain and improve. It's gonna happen I swear it will... trust me! Also they could be add driven live conventional TV. Had it been a service for which people are willing to pay for like porn, well it would just be more money and faster development. It's gonna happen... Remember when you first tried voice chat over dial-up? Have you used video/voice chat recently? (I don't pay for my skype account)
said by RadioDoc :I agree with you in the theoretical sense, but... As long as you agree with me
EDIT: Clarification
By money pumped into it, and by re-invested profits, I'm talking about ISPs to support the increased traffic. I have no idea if Google Video or YouTube will ever make money. |
|
SK
The member formerly known as Cow
Premium
join:2001-05-18
Toronto
clubs:  | reply to Uhawl
Don't be so pessimistic. Google sells some shows over their service too, maybe Apple is thinking of opening up its store or atleast its hardware to Google content.
--
Squash > Racquetball (racquetball is for old people) |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to peter_m
I used them as an example of technology not getting better over time simply because people hand over their money for a crap product. I see no end to that idiocy.
This is the same thing. I agree with you in the theoretical sense, but nobody is going to foot the bill for this, and precious few are willing to pay. Unless you are running a porn video subscription service, there is no money in it, and therefore there is no business in it.
Players are useless without content.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
The Buck Starts Here. |
|
peter_m
Premium
join:2005-07-13
Canada, QC
| reply to RadioDoc
Well I agree with your mobile phone rant. I feel the same way. It's also why I disagree with your remarks about iTV. You are not locked in when it comes to internet. iTV is not the only alternative. SOoOoO many software based players exist and they all want to be the best. It's part of the internet's jungle type of environment. No one want to be eaten alive! (read very competitive)
Mobile phone companies, well, ALMOST have a monopoly (but not, i know) and come from the old school mentality of phone companies when they were an actual monopoly. You can't compare them to the competitive internet technology companies that are run by people who are passionate about technology. They are just not in the same category... |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to peter_m
It's a phone. The ability to make a clear, reliable call should be universal at this point, and the cost should be half what is is now. Instead we've got expensive contracts, laughable audio quality, less coverage than even the old AMPS systems had, and toys like cameras and mp3 players to distract you from the fact that as a phone it's piece of shit.
The only reason you are "locked in" is because they can, and people put up with it. The electronics in the phone certainly is not the problem.
That you are willing to put up with such crappy service both from your cell phone provider and from an iTV-type outfit is the problem.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
The Buck Starts Here. |
|
peter_m
Premium
join:2005-07-13
Canada, QC
3 edits | reply to RadioDoc
I'm not sure what you mean by cell phones getting worst. Voice quality is not as good as it can be but I now can send text, pictures and videos with my phone. All this while they are getting smaller and with longer battery life. I can even surf the net on it! Besides, mobile phones are different because you are locked-in with your provider and very dependant on what they allow you to do with it.
Internet, well is different. You need a provider to get you connected but after that, the sky is the limit. You don't depend on the provider for content or services. Only for connectivity and speed of the connection!
As for 640x480 content, well no one said it has to be on demand and NOW. Just buffer it and wait a little while... have a coke and a smile |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to peter_m
said by peter_m :...by it's very nature all technology tends to get better over time. You could easily argue that cell phones have gotten progressively worse.
Until someone figures out how to reliably broadcast even 640x480 video over the public Internet in real time, this will continue to be nothing but a toy. Opening up a separate high-quality (never mind HD) stream for every viewer is insanely wasteful. Ask the cable companies...they're trying to push program origination closer to the sub precisely because of this issue, and that is on a very small scale compared to an iTV-type operation.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
The Buck Starts Here. |
|
peter_m
Premium
join:2005-07-13
Canada, QC
1 edit | reply to Uhawl
True that resolution might be bellow the capability of most TVs, but that's something that might change over time and even faster if a deal happens between Google and Apple. Besides, by it's very nature all technology tends to get better over time. So deal or no deal all on-line video sharing sites will increase resolution eventually. And the convenience? I think it's a good idea.
Add YouTube and you've got a set-top-box iPod killer that everyone is dreaming about.... well if the iPod was a set-top-box to begin with. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Uhawl
No no no. You'll be watching google videos in a 2" x 3" box on your 32" television. The entire picture will be the size of your fist... 
And you will like it because Steve Jobs told you to.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
The Buck Starts Here. |
|
Uhawl
-- watching --
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Asylum
 ·Comcast
| Yea... That would be great... Watching google videos on your 32 inch television and having pixels the size of your fist. Great idea! 
--
Spare cycles??? |
|
