video
You are currently browsing the articles from the VoIP Digest matching the category video.
In what appears to be a deal with the devil, Hollywood (20th Century Fox, Paramount and Warner Brothers) has decided to join forces with the popular peer-to-peer technology maker, BitTorrent, to create an online store will offer thousands of classic movies and television shows, as well as a large library of PC games and music videos.
It an important development from a number of different angles but one thing resonated with me is how the movie/video industry has addressed the P2P issue in a much different way than the music industry. Rather than try to bludgeon the video world legally, Hollywood has decided to play ball and create win-win situations. These deals don’t mean free video downloads will evaporate but at least Hollywood is trying to address the P2P in a pro-active way rather than following the music industry’s nasty legal agenda.
Can you imagine what would have happened if the music industry has co-oped Napster, which was a wonderful discovery tool (see my earlier post today on the need for discovery tools), instead of treating it like the devil? Napster’s emasculation was a sad development for a service with so much potential. Who knows, maybe Napster could have been a bigger and better iTunes if it was nurtured rather than neutered. Who knows whether the alliance between Bit Torrent and Hollywood will be successful but at least they’re trying.
For more, check out Mathew Ingram, who believes the Bit Torrent-Hollywood deal is doomed to fail, and IP Democracy, which points to the fact DRM issues could stop consumers from using the new service.
Share This
Written by Mark Evans on February 26th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on video and Main Page and Music.
I’m a big Slingbox fan but have been puzzled about the company’s business model beyond selling $200 hardware to consumers. So, I figured I’d address this issue while meeting with Greg Wilkes, Sling Media’s VP of sales, earlier today in Toronto. But before I could dive into the business model question, Wilkes spent 15 minutes talking about the new Slingboxes in the market or about to launched. Depending on your needs and budget, Sling plans to have a Slingbox to meet your needs, which is pretty impressive. (If you aren’t familiar with a Slingbox, it’s a device that you attach to your TV and/or satellite-cable box that lets you watch your TV using a computer while in another room or away from home. If you spend $100 on cable or satellite service, buying a $200 Slingbox to get more from that package is a no-brainer.)
So what about the business model? How does a company, which has received $53-million in venture capital, drive sales beyond hardware? The answer is syndication, licensing and advertising deals with content makers - a strategic initiative led by the company’s Sling Catcher service (it’s in beta) that lets people easily capture video clips using their Slingbox, and then share them with friends/family, or the Web community. While the financial details have yet to be worked out, Sling figures it can make money by providing content makers with ways to market and sell their programs, while Sling gets to generate some advertising revenue. Sling Catcher is also a sales and marketing tool because, in theory, people who are sent Sling Catcher video clips could be inspired to buy a Slingbox. Wilkes said Sling is also looking to generate revenue from software sales by putting the Sling player in a variety of devices such as laptops.
I also got a chance to meet Dave Zatz, who writes the Zatz Not Funny blog, which focuses on connected home and digital lifestyle. Zatz started a new gig as Sling’s manager of online communications - proving you never know where blogging will take you. Zatz said Sling plans to launch a corporate blog fairly soon that will feature Sling products, as well as tips, tools and news about digital media. It will be interesting to see how Zatz balances Sling’s blog with his own blog.
Technorati Tags: Sling Media, TV
Share This
Written by Mark Evans on February 23rd, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on video and Media.
Another Friday, another Talking Tech podcast featuring yours truly and my trusty sidekick, Kevin Restivo. In the wake of CES, it was a fairly quiet week but there was lots of buzz in the online video market with the official launch of Joost, Netflix getting into the movie and TV download business, and Brightcove raising $59.5-million. Both Kevin and I are impressed with Joost, which we think will be a success as long it can get content owners onboard. I also think Joost will be another entrepreneurial success for Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friss, who appear to have the Midas Touch in the wake of Skype’s sale to eBay.
In Canada, the big tech news of the week was Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce’s admission that its Talvest mutual trust subsidiary had lost a backup file that contained the personal data of 470,000 investors. Of course, this pales in comparison to TJX Inc. having its network hacked and as many as 40 million credit card numbers exposed.
We wrap up the podcast with a look at a week in the life of telecom entrepreneur Terry Matthews, who saw one of its investments, Ubiquity Software, acquired by Avaya for $144-million, while another, March Networks, had its stock drop 40% after revealing that one of its large customers (Wal-Mart) is buying less of its digital surveillance technology.
Technorati Tags: Wal-Mart, Terry Matthews, Video
Written by Mark Evans on January 20th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on video and Main Page and Podcasting.
Another day, another major online video announcement with BrightCove raising $59.5-milion of venture capital from a group of investors including the New York Times Co. It was only yesterday that the tech world was abuzz with the official launch of Joost (otherwise known as the Venice Project) and Netflix getting into the business of downloading movies and TV shows. Then, there’s the launch of Video.ca (well, in Canada, this is newsworthy).
Amid all this activity, it will be interesting to see how cable companies deal with the growth of video delivered and consumed on the Internet, particularly if the content owners get into the business of going direct to consumers. Does this mean the cablecos will have to aggressively enhance their video-on-demand and pay-per-view operations? Does it mean cablecos will try to squeeze more money out of their high-speed Internet access operations as consumers demand more bandwidth to download movies and TV shows?
It could be that cablecos will be squeezed by online video - much like newspapers, radio and the music industry are being squeezed by the Web. We’re in the midst of a huge shakeup in the media landscape that no one is able to avoid.
Technorati Tags: Venture Capital, Video
Written by Mark Evans on January 18th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on video and Main Page and Venture Capital.
The online video market is obviously red-hot (today’s news about NetFlix and Joost are perfect examples) so b5media is looking to launch a new blog looking at the people, key players, start-ups, trends and technologies shaping this fast-emerging industry. If you’re interested in writing this blog, drop me an e-mail at markevansATb5media.com.
Technorati Tags: b5media, TV
Written by Mark Evans on January 17th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on Uncategorized and video and Main Page.
So, there’s tons of buzz about the Venice Project - Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis’ new start-up to disrupt the television industry - now that beta invitations have finally been extended. While I haven’t got my invitation yet (sniff, sniff), Om Malik has the inside story on the company’s strategic direction from Fredrik de Wahl, who is running the company.
Written by Mark Evans on January 13th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on video and Main Page.
Sling Media’s efforts to position its new product, the SlingCatcher, as one of the hot products of the Consumers Electronics Show are in full swing. The company has been offering pre-show demos and interviews to the media and bloggers - and, not surprisingly, landed itself on the top of TechMeme.
So what is the SlingCatcher and why does everyone seem so stoked about its prospects? Unlike the Slingbox, which sends video from a TV to a PC or laptop, the SlingCatcher does the reverse by letting people send videos from their PCs to their TVs. (It reminds of the Seinfeld episode in which George decides to do everything the opposite way.) Given the fascination with YouTube videos, user-generated content and video downloads, the SlingCatcher will probably resonate with consumers, although I suspect not to the same extent as the Slingbox.
That said, the question that continues to puzzle me about Sling Media is how it intends to get an ROI from the more than $40-million of venture capital it has raised so far. If it’s just about selling $200 hardware, that’s an awful lot of Slingboxes and SlingCatchers that need to be sold (200,000 to be exact). In an ideal world, I expect Sling Media to get into the video delivery business by itself and/or with partners to create another source of revenue beyond hardware. At the very least, it could be a premium service where Sling Media offers its users access to special content such as Major League Baseball’s MLB.com package, which would play perfectly into the Slingbox demographic.
Maybe Sling Media has more tricks up its sleeves. Maybe the Slingbox and SlingCatcher are just tools to seed the market (at $200, it’s hard to go wrong. Trust me, I love my Slingbox!) before Sling Media starts to introduce premium video services. Then, it could embrace the razor-razor blade business model, and show how its investors (which include EchoStar, Liberty Media and Hearst Corp.) are going to make a return on their money.
Technorati Tags: CES, Sling Media, Video
Written by Mark Evans on January 8th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on video and Main Page.
Anyone see Boise State’s amazing 43-42 victory over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl, which saw Boise State complete an undefeated season by using a trick play to score a two-point convert? Well, I didn’t but the highlights of the game’s final moments were on YouTube. So, I head over there today only to discover this message:
“This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner Twentieth Century Fox because its content was used without permission”
Well, that sucks! Hey, I’m all for copyright protection but hasn’t Twentieth Century Fox learned any lessons from NBC, which went ape-shit when the SNL skit, Chronicles of Narnia, hit YouTube. Today, NBC is putting some of its skits on YouTube because it generates more interest in the show. There, I feel much better now.
Written by Mark Evans on January 5th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on video and Main Page.
According to YNet, Metacafe - one of the more popular video sharing services not called YouTube - has been acquired for $200-million. So who's next? Who's going to be left without a seat when the music stops playing?
Written by Mark Evans on December 8th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on video and Main Page and M&A.
I was watching a YouTube video (another funny take on Weird Al's Canadian Idiot) last night, which made me wonder how and/or if Google Video and YouTube are going to co-exist.
Let's start with YouTube given it's more popularity (23 million unique visitors a month can't be wrong, right?). Obviously, Google is probably going to implement AdSense throughout YouTube as a way to generate revenue. There will also be high-revenue banner ads to capitalize on the traffic. Then what? Does Google create a YouTube Premium section for people who want to download/buy videos such as TV shows and movies? If so, how would this affect YouTube's image/mojo given it's the place on the Web to access free video, albeit most of them amateur productions that leave much to be desired. If YouTube tried to make money from selling videos, would this potentially drive people away.
Then, there's Google Video, which has been a modest success since its launch. After all, Google would not have bought YouTube if its video strategy didn't need a $1.6-billion jump-start. Does Google stay upstream by mostly focusing on the sale of TV shows and movies, or does it continue to attract user-generated content as well.
Assuming YouTube pursues a premium strategy, and Google moves deeper into the user-generated content world, at what point will the two services start to look the same? If that happens, does it really matter as long as both businesses as thriving?
News: Google has signed a deal with BSkyB that will see Google provide its user-generated video, e-mail, search and targeted advertising tools to customers of BSkyB’s broadband internet service. “This is a really, really big deal for us,” said Google CEO Eric Schmidt. “If it works, it will become our most lucrative deal from the get-go.”
Technorati Tags: Google, Video
Written by Mark Evans on December 8th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Google and video and Main Page.
South of the border, they get YouTube; up here in the great, white north, we get....blogTV.ca, a video sharing service from Alliance Atlantis that's just for us Canucks. Check out Mathew Ingram's take on YouTube North, which apparently claims it owns all content uploaded to the Web site. Hah! Here's a riddle: why is it that Canada ranks second behind South Korea when it comes to high-speed Internet penetration yet we lag when it comes to e-commerce, social networking, user-generated content, etc. Why?
Written by Mark Evans on December 7th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on video and Main Page.
GigaOm is expanding again with the launch of a new blog, NewTeeVee, that will cover the online video industry's hot start-ups, talent, technology. With online video booming, it's actually been somewhat of a surprise these type of blogs haven't already flourished. Still, it's early days and there will more than enough news to keep an army of bloggers busy as YouTube, Google, Yahoo, Brightcove, DailyMotion, etc. become even bigger players in the video business. Nice work, Om.
Technorati Tags: Om Malik, TV
Written by Mark Evans on December 5th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on video and Main Page.
If you haven't heard about DailyMotion.com, you probably will fairly soon, particularly if you're one of those people who wants to watch commercial-free television shows for free. I stumbled upon the video-sharing site via by brother, who read about it on Forbes.com.
So who is DailyMotion? Well, they're based in Paris and there does not appear to be any ways they make money right now: no advertising, no sponsored links, nothing. The company, which received seven million euros of venture capital from Partech and Atlas Ventures, has 18 employees, although some of them could be part-timers or volunteers as opposed to full-time staff. The company's two founders are Benjamin Bejbaum and Olivier Poitrey.
According to Forbes, DailyMotion's traffic has tripled in the past three months, albeit off a small base given it only has 0.22% market share compared with 65% for YouTube. (I'd insert an Alexa chart but you barely be able to see DailyMotion on it.)
With DailyMotion running complete TV shows, the question is whether it's violating copyright laws. Forbes quoted someone from the Electronic Frontier Foundation that DailyMotion could be protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provision, which lets sites host infringed content if they aren't aware of it, don't profit from it and remove any infringing content immediately upon the copyright holder's request. I suspect DailyMotion may start getting more of these copyright holder requests once its profile starts to grow. In the meantime, have fun. I'm off to watch some "My Name is Earl" episodes as we speak.
Note: You can read an interview with Bejbaum on seomoz.org
Written by Mark Evans on December 1st, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and video and Main Page.
According to TechCrunch, BitTorrent has raised $25 million from Accel Partners and Doll Capital Management. BitTorrent has also signed distribution deals with a variety of major film and TV producers. So, the idea is the money and the licensing deals with MTV, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, etc. is going to make BitTorrent legit - and steer it farther away from its roots as a cool P2P technology used to download free movies, TV shows and music? In theory, that makes sense but it's a bit of a pipe-dream unless some of the $25-million is used to crack down on all those Torrent-crazed pirates out there. Mathew Ingram doesn't think much about the press release given he believes it's going to take a lot more than some PR for BitTorrent to compete against the pirates.
Written by Mark Evans on November 30th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on video and p2p and Main Page.
Written by Skype Journal on November 29th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Business and video and Strategy and North America and Marketing.
...anyone gets excited about a plan by Verizon Wireless to offer access to YouTube on a wireless device. For $15 a month, Verizon is offering a YouTube-like service as part of a service called VCast that will provide a limited number of YouTube videos that have been selected and approved by both companies.
Come on, it's a tough enough sell trying to get people to watch videos on teeny-tiny screens without neutering the world's most popular video sharing service...and asking people to fork out $15 for the privilege. The New York Times has a strange quote from YouTube co-founder Steve Chen, who contends "Everybody carries a phone with them, but they may not have a computer...[so people] can take the phone out of their pocket while waiting for the bus and watch a video."
In theory, that's a nice sentiment but in practice, that's easier said than done. In trying to sell YouTube-lite at a premium price, Verizon clearly wants to manage demand while still getting a sense of whether the service actually works and if there are any bleeding edge suckers out there will be guinea pigs.
Of course, wireless carriers are happy to explore all and any ways to increase average revenue per subscriber (ARPU), which is an acronym for trying to squeeze more money out of existing customers. If YouTube-lite can help boost ARPU, there's no harm in trying to sell it. That said, any consumer who jump at YouTube-lite isn't thinking straight.
Written by Mark Evans on November 29th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Wireless and video and Main Page.
The latest issue of Wired Magazine (a healthy 284-pages, including the holiday buying guide) arrived today with a cover story on YouTube ("YouTube Grows Up"). I haven't got around to reading it yet but it got me thinking about the many similarities between YouTube and Napster.
Both services came out of nowhere and quickly became popular with millions of users looking for free content. Napster, unfortunately, incurred the wrath of the music industry, which was far from prepared to consider the idea of selling music on the Web. On the other hand, YouTube's popularity came at a time when the large content producers, broadcasters, etc. had already realized there was a new distribution model to be leveraged even if the business models weren't fully-baked yet. While Napster got lawsuit-ed into oblivision (well, neutered and eventually sold to Roxio as a shell of its former self), YouTube was snapped up by Google for $1.6-billion, and its founders - Chad Hurley and Steve Chen - are hailed as entrepreneurs heroes.
So what's the difference between the two players? Napster was clearly ahead of its time, and the music industry didn't have the time, energy or creatively to counter-attack or strike a deal with Shawn Fanning. Meanwhile, YouTube's time was/is nearly perfect because everyone knew video was going to be big on the Web, and had started to gear up for it. It didn't hurt that Apple launched the video iPod, which hammered home the "hello, video is here" message.
Another difference is YouTube has been able to reach licensing agreements with content owners, while Napster failed to bring any of the major labels onside. Of course, it's still left to be seen whether Google can turn YouTube into a business (aside from making it yet another platform for AdSense). I wonder whether Napster would have enjoyed the same kind of adoration if Fanning had started it in late-2004 or late-2005 rather than 1999. Would it have made a difference? Would the record labels have embraced it as an exciting new way to distribute content? Who knows, it might have even been a legitimate rival to iTunes.
For more thoughts, check out Peter Cashmore, eHub and, of course, Mark Cuban.
Written by Mark Evans on November 21st, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and video and Main Page and Music.
Written by Skype Journal on October 24th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Skype and VoIP and News and video and ebay and skypejournal and Skype News and General Notices and Every Post and webcam.
In this week's
Talking Tech podcast, Kevin Restivo and I discuss the impending disappearance of BCE and the decision to convert Bell Canada, the country's largest carrier, into an income trust (the
Globe & Mail has a huge feature series today on the rise of income trusts). We also touch upon Google's proposed $1.65-billion acquisition of YouTube, including the copyright issue that has everyone in a tizzy. Finally, we look at how legal digital music downloads doubled in the first half of the year. Of course, this doesn't mean illegal downloads have disappeared. One of the big questions in the music industry is whether Russia's
AllofMP3.com, which sells CDs for between $1 to $2, is legal or illegal.
Written by Mark Evans on October 15th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and video and Main Page and Podcasting and M&A.
Mark Cuban may have missed the mark when he refused to believe Google would buy YouTube but now that the deal's getting done, his unorthodox stance on the $1.65-billion marriage shouldn't be ignored. His post today - somewhat hard to find amid the blogosphere tsunami unleashed yesterday - raises an excellent point: with YouTube poised to become of the Google empire (and bidding a champagne-drenched farewell to its status as a scrappy, peoples' champion start-up) how long will it take before Google's major rivals (e.g. Fox, which owns MySpace, which also delivers a lot of video) unleash their legal hounds on YouTube? After all, Google will be a major player in the video business so why would content owners let it use unlicensed material to support the YouTube's growth. The other side of the coin is Google may be content to deal with any content issues if that's what it takes to own the world's biggest online video brand. Two other points before you go onto to read everything you ever wanted to know about YouTube: 1. YouTube was started in 20 months ago; it raised its first round of VC last November, and talked about an IPO a few months ago. It's been a wonderful, wild ride from Chad Hurley and Steven Chen; and 2. Sequoia Capital, which also had a major stake in Google, could see its $11.5-million investment in YouTube be worth as much as $500-million. Sweet.
Update: Nice to see the New York Times has finally caught up to me - :) - with a story about how Sequoia was the only VC to back YouTube. It is interesting that Sequoia was able to corner the deal, particularly when YouTube raised a second round after it had gained some serious traction.
Written by Mark Evans on October 10th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Google and Web 2.0 and video and Main Page and M&A.
Amid the speculation (and eventual reality) about Goolge buying YouTube, something that hasn't received much attention is how Sequoia Capital invested $3.5-million in November 2005, and $8-million in April, 2006. (Sequoia appears to be the only VC to make an investment in YouTube.) So how much of YouTube does Sequioa own and, more important, how much could its stake be worth? Last October, Om Malik suggested Sequoia's initial investment in YouTube was done at a pre-money valuation of $15-million. For the sake of argument,
let's assume Sequoia own 25% of YouTube. If YouTube is worth anything near the $1.6-billlion being bandied about by the NYT and others, Sequoia is looking at $400-million, or a 40x return on its money. Now, that's a big-time home run - perhaps not a Skype-like monster blast home run but a home run nonetheless.
More: Mr. Wave Theory crunches his own numbers to come up with the booty split between YouTube's VCs, founders (Steven Chen and Chad Hurley) and employees. Here's a video interview featuring Hurley and Chen on how YouTube was started.
Update: DealBook reports Google's purchase of YouTube could happen as early as this afternoon. Google ended up making a $1.65-billion bid for YouTube.
Written by Mark Evans on October 9th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and video and Main Page and M&A.
Is everyone YouTube obsessed? If so, how come? Is it copyright issues? Jealously over its success? The possibility it might crack a huge Web 2.0 hurdle by actually doing an IPO? The blogosphere and media has been frothing at the keyboard lately - ranging from passionate defenses by Lefsetz's Letter and Fred Wilson to Mark Cuban's copyright rant and the New York Times' interview with YouTube CEO Chad Hurley. This YouTube addiction is strikingly similar to what Skype experienced before it was snapped up by eBay for $4.2-billion. To illustrate my point here's how they compare:
YouTube Skype
Young Founders Chad Hurley, Steve Chen Niklas Zennstrom, Janus Friis
Industry Under Attack TV, movies Telecom/telephony
Initial Cost Free Free
Initial Business Model None None
Current model AdSense, contextual advertising Premium services
Biggest Fans Sequoia Capital, Fred Wilson Tim Draper
Biggest Enemies Mark Cuban ILECs, cablecos
Takeover Buzz Medium Hot
Value $2-billion (speculated) $4.2-billion (eBay's cost)
VC Raised: $10.8-million $21.1-million
VCs Sequoia Capital Draper Fisher, Index Ventures
Legal Issues No lawsuits...yet. Lawsuits: Streamcast, IDT
Competition: Microsoft, Google, MySpace, Apple Vonage, ILECs cablecos
Traffic: 100 million video streams/day 7M concurrent users (peak)
Written by Mark Evans on October 1st, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and video and tv and Main Page.
You have to love Mark Cuban, who says it like it is. At a conference yesterday, he said only a "moron" would buy YouTube. "They are just breaking the law," CNet reported. "The only reason it hasn't been sued yet is because there is nobody with big money to sue." Cuban's no-lawsuit theory may be right but isn't a little curious YouTube has escaped the wrath of copyright owners so far while Napster, et al incited a wave of lawsuits and attacks on consumers? Here's my theory at when it comes to television programs being downloaded. While people are accessing them for free, there is still advertising on them. Maybe this gives copyright owners the luxury of figuring out whether they can work with video-sharing services such as YouTube rather than suing them.
Update: Something I didn't know until today is YouTube a 100MB upload limit, which means only 10 minute video clips can be shown - perfect for segments from the Daily Show and Bill Clinton interviews on Fox; not good for The Sopranos or House episodes. Maybe this is why the TV and movie industries haven't given YouTube a difficult time legally because 10-minute clips are more marketing vehicles than threats. For more thoughts, check out Don Dodge, a former v.p. with Napster, who takes issue with many of Cuban's ideas about YouTube. The New York Times also weighs in with a story on YouTube.
Written by Mark Evans on September 29th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on video and Main Page.
Russell Shaw has an
interesting post about
Verizon planning to offer
all video content to their customer's set-top boxes in just 12-18 months using the fiber network. If you recall, I analyzed
Verizon's race to build out their fiber network, which I read about in a NYTimes article.
Teaser of Russell's post:
In a private note to several of his colleagues (including your truly) Dave Burstein of DSL Prime reports this morning he has found out that Verizon is about 12 to 18 months away from executing a plan to open the set-top box to all Internet video. This woud be done by means of Verizon FIOS, their broadband video service.
And by all Internet video, not just the video content provided by Verizon content partners, but all of it.
Hmmm. While Russell suggests that Internet video will be available, he doesn't give specifics how this would work. Will the set-top box feature a built-in web browser? Will it require a keyboard and mouse to navigate Internet video content on your TV and wouldn't this be a redux of the failed
Microsoft WebTV (now
MSN TV)? Or is Verizon planning instead to use a 4-way keypad on your typical TV set-top box remote control for content navigation? Plus using numbers 0-9 pressed multiple times to enter letters A-Z, which is a pain.
I would think that Verizon would have to partner with
YouTube,
Google Video, and other major video content players if they want to make it easy to navigate their Internet content simply using a 4-way keypad. They'd have to "skin" the web content in order to make it easily viewable and easily navigated from a remote control with no keyboard or mouse support.
Or perhaps, we will see a redux of the WebTV and similar devices, where future set-top boxes will have full keyboard/mouse support to enable Internet access for accessing online video content, as well as checking email, chatting/IMing, etc. Of course, a wireless keyboard/mouse would be preferred for the best 10' experience. Maybe it will support USB cameras as well for 2-way videoconferencing and audioconferencing over IP (VoIP). It could use Bluetooth for the audio part, so you can answer VoIP/video calls on your TV using your favorite Bluetooth headset, such as the
Plantronics 510-USB. Or since the set-top box is already connected to your home stereo system, you could pipe the caller's audio out your 5.1 surround sound speakers so you can have a headset-free, handset-free, speakerphone-type call in 3D surround sound!
Of course, then you'd need a really good echo canceller built into the set-top box, which will add to the unit cost of the set-top box. Still, a cool future concept. Not to mention cable companies typically charge you a maintenance fee on the set-top box, a remote control renting charge, etc. So I'm sure they could recoup their costs. So... ummm.. any takers? I can be a beta tester!
Anyway...
Check out Russell's post...
TrackBack (0)
| Comments (0) | Tag with del.icio.us | VoIP & Gadget Blog | Permalink: Verizon FIOS will have set-top delivery of ALL Internet videos
Tags:
fiber,
internet,
verizon,
video,
video conferencing,
voip
Copyright
VoIP & Gadgets Blog
Written by VoIP & Gadgets Blog on September 28th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on VoIP and Home Entertainment and video and verizon and fiber.
I didn't attend VON, so I cannot attest to the traffic numbers or how the "buzz" was at the show just a few short weeks ago. However, I found some interesting posts from bloggers and websites that discussed the VON show. One interesting comment was from Eric Chamberlain, from
Voxilla that said, "This was my first VON show. Turnout appeared light and my peers confirmed that turnout was around 20 percent lower than in past years. It's been a while since I worked a trade show and maybe I've spent too much time in Berkeley, but it felt like we were nickel-and-dimed for every little thing at the show."
20% lower than the previous year? VoIP is growing like gangbusters, so why the low turnout at VON? Has VoIP peaked? Does the lower turnout explain why Pulver has changed the name of the show from "video on the Net" to "Voice on the Net" in an attempt to broaden his audience appeal? TMC runs several VoIP-related tradeshows, including the flagship
Internet Telephony Conference & Expo show, so if VON is
any indication of lower turnout at VoIP shows, this doesn't bode well for TMC's shows.
Although VON is a direct competitor to my company, I'd much rather see VON do well than do poorly. So I asked Rich how our next show, coming up in 2 weeks in San Diego was doing -- registration/attendee-wise. Rich said, "Since early Summer, ITEXPO registration has been running well ahead of 2005 - and the momentum has not stopped. This event is on pace to have the most exhibitors, most paid conference attendees, and most exhibit hall attendees in the history of the show."
Rich continued, "The registration numbers for this show look fantastic and we expect attendees from up to 70 countries. In addition to buyers -- something ITEXPO always attracts -- we have been focusing extensively on recruiting the most influential, press, analysts and financial people. We expect ITEXPO to be the best attended IP communications show in the world. The show will take up a significant portion of the San Diego Convention center and this is a can't miss event."
Now if it was just one comment on VON, I could easily discount it. However, Voxilla isn't the only one that was dissapointed in this past VON show. Marc Robins, an industry analyst and reporter had a
mixed review when he wrote, "The exhibit floor looks quite good, with 350 or so booths and decent traffic. I did detect a bit of boredom on Jeff's part with respect to VoIP -- he seems to be tiring of the technology and clearly finds Video over IP a more compelling area right now."
Interestingly, and on a related note, I came across some i
nteresting comments to a paidcontent.org article.
Dave: VON = voice on the net NOT video
Rafat: Dave…it is Pulver’s new thing…he’s still calling it VOD, for video on the net.
So even VON attendees are confused and aren't yet aware of the name change.
Skype Journal writes about how Pulver demo'ed a high definition trailer of the Ghost Rider movie. While I'm sure it was pretty entertaining to watch a high-def trailer of a movie coming out, do we really attend tradeshows
to be entertained? Most attendees to telecom/VoIP shows are there to be educated, to learn about new products and how to apply them in their business. Another portion of attendees there are vendors and they are there to sell their products, partner with other vendors, as well as demonstrate a "market presence" by exhibiting at the major VoIP tradeshows. Yet another portion is analysts and reporters that are there to report interesting news. Is seeing Ghost Rider in high-definition during a keynote interesting news? I suppose in context Pulver could be simply setting the stage for what the future holds in the video-on-demand space - in particular within the
IPTV space. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but it certainly shows a change in direction for the VON show.
During his keynote, Pulver pulled up on screen a virtual live conference room in "
Pulveria," an online space he created at
Second Life. From within this virtual world, 3D avatars watched his keynote address over the Internet. While it's a cool concept, and I actually checked out the Pulveria conference room, I hear the keynote's video frame rate was a dismal 6FPS or less for most attendees. The virtual tradeshow/conference using IP is still a way off. Besides, there's nothing like "pressing the flesh".
So with all this focus on streaming video to Second Life, HD movie trailers, etc., is this further proof that Voice over IP (VoIP) just isn't as exciting to Pulver any more? Jeff just celebrated his 10th year anniversary for VON, which was previously known as "Voice on the Net" but for whatever reason on this 10th year, he decided to change the name to "Video on the Net".
Video certainly seems to be Jeff's
new love, leaving his former love, "
VoIP", feeling jaded after a loving 10 year marriage.
In fact, I was able to get an
"exclusive" interview with Mrs. VoIP to get her take on their marriage break-up.
Tom: So Mrs. VoIP, tell me, what happened between you and Jeff?
Mrs. VoIP: I don't know. Jeff and I were happily married for so long. Jeff was one of my earliest fans, before I became so famous. He even
stood up before Congess in defense of me.
Tom: That's interesting. Pulver went all the way to Washington D.C. to defend you?
Mrs. VoIP: Yes, that's right. He even lobbied against a proposed tax on VoIP (me) and broadband.
Tom: So Jeff is a lobbyist? Does he known
Jack Abramoff?
Mrs. VoIP: I don't know if Pulver knows Jack.
Tom: Pulver doesn't know Jack? I thought he was a smart guy.
Mrs. VoIP: Oh Jeff knows plenty of things. But he's certainly not the same man I used to know. I used to be the star of his Voice on the Net (VON) show. Now I am just a side attraction.
Tom: So when did Jeff start distancing himself from you?
Mrs. VoIP: Well, it all started once Jeff started
lobbying for net neutrality.
Tom: Yes, but doesn't net neutrality help VoIP? Doesn't it help you against the
"big boys" blocking VoIP packets?
Mrs. VoIP: Yes, it does, but once Jeff took up the battle cry for net neutrality, he was spending less and less time with me. I should have seen the writing on the wall. <blows nose><sniff>
Tom: There there, Mrs. VoIP.
Mrs. VoIP: He did go to bat for me in trying to
get e911 legislation passed, but I could tell his heart wasn't in it any more. I just wasn't as sexy to him any more. <sniff> That's when Mrs. Video over IP stole him from me. First, Jeff wrote a
really long blog post listing the top Internet video TV channels. That damn video chick stole him from me! Reminds me of that LonelyGirl15 chick. I hope Mrs. Video over IP
pulls a LonelyGirl15 on him! We all know that YouTube video chick was a fraud. I, Mrs. VoIP, would never perpetrate a fraud on him! VoIP is an honest biz free from fraud ya know.
Tom: What about
VoIP CallerID spoofing, or those guys that
resold stolen VoIP minutes?
Mrs. VoIP: <crying> Never you mind. It's not very nice to argue with a crying lady you know.
Tom: My apologies. This may be a tough question to ask, but what do you think of Mrs. Video over IP?
Mrs. VoIP: Sure, she's pretty and all. Sure video is a huge multibillion dollar industry. In fact, the online porn industry probably accounts for a huge chunk of Internet traffic - mostly XXX video downloads. I know Bittorrent is #1, but half the stuff being downloaded on Bittorrent is probably video porn. Well, let me tell ya, Mrs. Video over IP outta show some respect cause I started this whole porn industry ya know.
Tom: Really?
Mrs. VoIP: Well, technically it was my Ma.
Tom: Ma who?
Mrs. VoIP: Ma Bell. She made a killing on 1-900 phone sex calls. In fact, she's still doing phone sex even though Ma Bell is over a hundred years old.
Tom: Now there's an image I don't want to ...
Mrs. VoIP: <interrupts> Excuse me? Are you making fun of my Ma?
Tom: No.. no. Not me. Let's move on, shall we?
Mrs. VoIP: Let's just say Jeff would be nothing without me. I made Jeff the successful entrepreneur that he is today. As for Mrs. Video over IP... She would be nothing without Voice over IP. Who wants to watch a video with no sound? Shall we go back to the 1920s of silent film before the "talkies" were invented? I don't think so. Let's say that eventually in the future
everyone has a videphone in their home. Which would you rather have - video and no voice, or voice and no video. Can't communicate with just video, and no sound, now can ya?
Tom: Well, if you know sign language... maybe charades...
Mrs. VoIP: Don't argue with me. I already had one VoIP blogger turn on me, so don't tell me you're thinking about leaving me too.
Tom: Did I say that?
Mrs. VoIP: You didn't have to. I can hear it in your voice. You think Mrs. Voice over IP is sexier than me! You men are all the same! Just try and use your
Vonage line tonight, mister! I'm going to mess up the QoS on the line.
Tom: I hate to break it to ya, but
I switched from Vonage to AT&T's unlimited-plan double-play package which uses the PSTN.
Mrs. VoIP: Damn you! This hurts far more than Jeff leaving me! Not you, Tom. Of all people, not you! Tom, please don't leave me. What do I have to do to make you stay?
Tom: Hmmmmm. Well, do you know Miss Data? No relation to
Mr. Data from Star Trek - The Next Generation.
Mrs. VoIP: <cautiously> Yes... I know Miss Data.
Tom: Not 'slow' Dialup Miss Data. I'm talking about that fast woman. She's gotta be fast.
Mrs. VoIP: What's up with men and liking fast women? She's fast all right. Miss High-Speed Data is her full name. What do you want with her?
Tom: In addition to Miss High-Speed Data, I want you and Mrs. Video over IP in my house as well.
Mrs. VoIP: You want a threesome?
Tom: 
Hey, now, I'm a married man! I just want a Triple Play offering from you and the other two with excellent features, tight integration, and good quality of service. And I want it cheap.
Mrs. VoIP: So you want us woman to be cheap, provide service to you, and feature "tight" integration? Hmph! Oh I see how it is. You want your cake and eat it too. I don't play that game. Have fun playing with your PSTN. Goodbye!
The preceding was all in jest. Any attempts at humor that failed I blame on Jeff. Yep it's his fault for inspiring this blog post. I assume no responsibility for any bad humor. 
In all seriousness, I hope the 20% downturn at VON this year was just a "blip" or a fluke. Was it related to refocusing the show on video instead of voice? Is Jeff becoming too much of a 'visionary 'instead of focusing on technology solutions that
exist today? Hard to say. All I know is that I'm excited to head to sunny San Diego in just 2 weeks for
ITEXPO where I can gauge for myself the pulse of the IP communications industry. By all accounts, IT EXPO should be a great show. I'll be reporting from the show - including all the interesting VoIP news expected to come out. I will be sure to also post my analysis of the attendee traffic numbers - for better or worse - here on my blog. You can count on me to be brutally honest and to say it like it is.
TrackBack (0)
| Comments (0) | Tag with del.icio.us | VoIP & Gadget Blog | Permalink: VON = Voice on the Net or Video on the Net?
Tags:
internet telephony conference and expo,
iptv,
it expo,
jeff pulver,
video,
voip,
von
Copyright
VoIP & Gadgets Blog
Written by VoIP & Gadgets Blog on September 27th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on IPTV and VoIP and video.
In Canada, entrepreneurs never seem to dream big enough. They want to be successful but few of them talk about conquering their markets. Zip.ca, which aspires to be Canada's NetFlix, appears to be an exception to the rule. The Ottawa-based company wants to raise $25-million to enhance its marketing and advertising programs, as well as expand its 52,000-title DVD library. In Canada, $25-million is a big chunk of change but Zip CEO Rick Anderson sees no reason why the privately-owned company can't have revenue of $100-million (about 10X current sales) and a 300,000 DVD library in a few years. With video downloads becoming all the rage, Zip has already positioned itself with technology to deliver downloads and streaming video, although Anderson believes the download market is moving forward slowly.
Written by Mark Evans on September 27th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on video and Main Page.
Another week, another reason to talk about YouTube...and the new Nintendo Wii and the Blackberry Pearl. This week, Kevin and I look at whether copyright issues will change how video-services operate and/or affect the amount of traffic they attract. We also touch upon Microsoft's new video-service service called Soapbox, which was described by one analyst as "YouTube for middle-age people". You can find the podcast and show notes here. My column in this week's National Post explores the copyright and YouTube's recent licensing agreement with Warner Brothers Music.
Update: If you're looking for more podcast material, three guys named Malik, Scoble and Arrington got together recently.
Written by Mark Evans on September 24th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on video and Main Page and Podcasting.
My column in today's National Post looks at how copyright is about to become the hot issue within the red-hot video-sharing market. As Mark Cuban recently argued, video-sharing services such as YouTube have thrived on free hosting and unfettered access to lots of unlicensed music and videos. Well, the copyright infringement party is over as illustrated by YouTube's licensing agreement with Warner-Brothers Music earlier this week. So what does this mean for video-sharing services who will have to play by the copyright rules? What does it mean for content owners? Read the column to find out.
Update: The New York Post has a story suggesting YouTube won't sell out unless it gets an offer of at least $1.5-billion - a staggering amount for a company with lots of users but little revenue and a copyright challenge.
Written by Mark Evans on September 21st, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and video and Main Page.
For anyone dreaming of a YouTube IPO (or M&A), hope comes in the form of a licensing deal with Warner Brother Music that will see some kind of revenue sharing. According to AP, Warner will license thousands of music videos to YouTube. Warner will also let people use its songs in home-made video that appear on YouTube. There a few of ways to look at the deal. Either it's the legitimization of YouTube as copyright owners start to embrace the popular video-sharing service - something envisioned by TechCrunch. Or it's the end of YouTube as we currently know it as a flurry of copyright owners begin to demand their own copyright deals - a scenario envisioned by Mark Cuban in a post called "The Coming Dramatic Decline of Youtube". A third way (and perhaps the middle ground between TechCrunch and Mark Cuban) to consider how the YouTube-Warner arrangement could impact the entire video-sharing "industry". As Mark Cuban notes, video-sharing sites have thrived due to free hosting and the ability to infringe copyright without any fear of retribution (a whole bunch of venture capital certainly helps too!). But what happens if/when the video-sharing industry is copyright-ized? What happens if content owners start demanding a cut of the action if, as expected, video-sharing evolves into a business from a pop-culture phenomena? At that point, some of the strong players will likely abe able to survive because they have the financial ability and popularity (a.k.a. potential content customers) to cut deals. The others, I'm afraid, could disappear because content owners may not find it viable to hammer out licensing agreements.
Written by Mark Evans on September 18th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and video and Main Page.
Written by Skype Journal on September 13th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Skype and VoIP and Products and video and ebay and Skypeæ‚å¿— and skypejournal and Life and Life and wishlist and Competitors and webcam.
If you didn't know it already, the Toronto International Film Festival is now going on - and it seems the entire city has a really bad case of celebrity-itis. (evidence: Brad Pitt press conference/love-in) In the Before Children (BC) era, my wife and I used to see a handful of films, most of which never appeared at movies theatres let alone the local Blockbuster. These days, I'm lucky to see one film (usually the Rogers Gala - this year it was "Penelope"). Given there are so many great films at the festival, wouldn't it be great if you could access them on the Web after the festival is over? Putting aside all those tricky technical, distribution and copyright issues, it would give a much wider audience the opportunity to see movies, and provide film makers/distributors with another source of revenue. This idea seems like such a win-win, no-brainer that I'm surprised it hasn't been explored earlier. And with Apple planning to offer movie downloads via iTunes, it's an idea whose time has come. (For Steve Jobs fans, check out Om Malik's post: "Is Steve Jobs Bill Gates 2.0?").
Written by Mark Evans on September 13th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Apple and video and Main Page.
Just received word that
Skype for Mac 2.0 beta now has video. Mac users have been clamoring for this video feature that PC users have been enjoying for some time. So Mac users, rejoice!
TrackBack (0)
| Comments (0) | Tag with del.icio.us | VoIP & Gadget Blog | Permalink: Skype for Mac 2.0 has video!
Tags:
mac,
skype,
video,
voip
Copyright
VoIP & Gadgets Blog
Written by VoIP & Gadgets Blog on September 13th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Skype and VoIP and video and mac.
For all those YouTube followers chomping at the bit for an IPO, venture capitalist Fred Wilson has done some interesting number-crunching based on two assumptions: 10-second pre-roll ads and a $15 CPM rate. His back of the napkin spreadsheet guess-timates YouTube could generate $153.3-million of revenue after making payments to content owners. Now, if the investment bankers on Wall St. weren't chomping at the bit already.....
Update: Jason Calacanis believes YouTube's revenue potential is closer to $20-million based on the idea it will only be able to get CPM rates of $2 to $3, rather than $15, as well as issues about legal issues that could arise by putting advertising in front of content.
Technorati tags: video, YouTube
Written by Mark Evans on September 7th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Web 2.0 and video and Main Page.
Having written a lot about YouTube recently, I stayed out of the fray yesterday when the video-sharing company unveiled new two advertising programs yesterday (with a little help from the notorious Paris Hilton). It got me thinking that while YouTube - and anything video, for that matter - is hot, what other Web 2.0 have as much buzz these days? More important, what are the hottest Web 2.0 businesses these days in terms of companies making revenue and profits? As Dead 2.0 made clear a few weeks ago, Web 2.0 is a lot like hot school. One day, you're red hot and you've got more friends than you'd ever imagine; the next all these people have moved on to the next new kid in town. If you've got suggestions and/or thoughts about whose hot and who's red hot, feel free to pass them along. Update: I guess Grouper is
"hot" given it has been acquired
by Sony Pictures for $65-million.
