Posted: July 11th, 2010 | Tags: Media, Online Video, Web | View Comments
On Friday YouTube announced support for “4K video,” meaning video files with a dimensional size up to 4096 x 2304 pixels. Not only does this feature have no practical application in online video, the announcement itself only serves to further confuse an already misinformed public of professional and amateur video publishers.
YouTube purports to make videos “…available in the highest quality possible, as creators intend,” and this is the problem. Bigger is not necessarily better, or more accurately, there is a practical limitation to the gains in perceived quality from video files of a larger dimensional size (notice that I don’t use the term “resolution” here, as the term refers to pixel density, not the number of horizontal and vertical pixels). In fact, going too big will likely introduce a number of performance and quality issues for the vast majority of users.
YouTube mentions that watching videos in 4k requires an “ultra-fast high-speed broadband connection,” but this is actually the least important requirement. While users on slower broadband connections can always wait for enough of the video to download and buffer before watching it, they can’t increase their RAM, GPU performance and display resolution, and those are the source of the real issues.
Most of us these days use digital displays (LCDs, etc.) with native, fixed pixel dimensions. For instance right now I’m on an Apple Cinema display with a fixed pixel dimension of 1920 x 1200. This means that my MacBook Pro’s graphics processor needs to scale any incoming format to the native dimension of my display. The bigger the difference between the incoming format and my display, the more work the GPU needs to do to scale the image. In terms of YouTube’s 4k videos, the end result is that my 1 year old top-of-the-line MacBook Pro can’t smoothly handle the processing, resulting in dropped frames (jerky video playback) and a less than optimal video watching experience. If I switch the stream to 720p or 1080p it looks great, with no perceived difference in image clarity. Actually, I see more compression and motion artifacts in the 4k stream from what I can only guess is non-optimal interpolation from the GPU. You can see for yourself here, but you need to switch to the “Original” format to see the 4k version.
The other issue with YouTube’s announcement is that it makes no mention of bitrate or compression, which is far more important than pixel dimension when it comes to quality. As a video destination catering mostly to non-professionals, YouTube has always used high compression/low bitrates — and their 4k video is no exception. This is why compression artifacts are so noticeable even when watching the 4k version.
Here is a non-magnified section of a screenshot taken of a 4k video on YouTube when played in full screen mode (click the image to see the full screenshot – your browser will likely scale the image so click it again to see it in full size). You can clearly see lots pixelation and compression artifacts, and this is a section with very little motion.
What’s the point of offering higher definition formats if bitrate settings are so low as to introduce significant compression artifacts? This by the way is also a problem with most cable operators: their 1080i and 720p HD signals look terrible due to over compression.
Offering higher dimension video files is technically trivial. It’s simply a matter of adding another transcode profile. But by offering the option to publish ridiculously large video files, YouTube is confusing the public as to what constitutes good video quality and encouraging publishers to upload video files in a format that results in a poor experience for most users.
Share:
Twitter
//
Facebook
//
Buzz
//
LinkedIn
//
Email
Posted: June 13th, 2010 | Tags: Consumer Tech, Media | View Comments
A few weeks ago I was arguing with some folks about what Apple would announce at this year’s WWDC. Given that we knew Apple would announce the next gen iPhone (thanks Gizmodo), there wasn’t much fun in making predications this year. So, our debate shifted to what we hoped Apple would announce (acknowledging the unlikelihood of anything major beyond iPhone 4).
I was most excited about the rumors circulating of a new Apple TV based on iPhone OS 4 and offering cloud-based media streaming, including 1080P video. Admittedly, I’m one of the few people who actually owns and uses an Apple TV. Despite it’s limitations, it’s still the best living room video-on-demand experience for premium TV and movies (yeah, Netflix streaming is great, but their catalogue sucks – Breakfast Club anyone?). All told I watch more content delivered via iTunes/Apple TV than my Tivo HD, Vudu and PS3 combined.
Anyway, the idea of a new cloud-based Apple TV based on the iPhone OS made perfect sense to me. This would allow Apple to extend the reach of their platform ecosystem (iTunes, apps, media, devices) to the living room. It would be the Papa Bear of the iOS device family, perfectly complimenting the iPhone and iPad. The implications for console gaming alone would be huge. Who would still buy a Wii? Game developers could write universal apps for iPhone, iPad and… iTV? The iPhone or iPad could be used as a remote control, keyboard and game controller – made significantly more powerful with iPhone 4′s new gyroscope capabilities. And that’s just games. If an iTunes-in-the-cloud streaming service (based on Apple’s acquisition of Lala) was on the horizon, a logical extension of that would be 1080P video streaming. Add to this Google’s recent Google TV announcement and it all made perfect sense.
Well… not only did Mr. Jobs not announce the next gen Apple TV at WWDC, he actually went out of his way a few days earlier on stage at the D8 show to disparage the very idea. Basically he said that there’s no viable path to market for new TV platforms. According to Jobs, people won’t pay for a set-top box when they already get one free from their cable operator – Tivo’s difficulties are proof of this and Google will soon learn this lesson as well. He then goes on to say that the only way to be successful is if you start from scratch, build a great experience and get it to the consumer in a way that they’re willing to pay for. But again, according to Jobs this can’t be done in what is essentially a cable subsidized industry.
I think he’s right about most of this. It would be very difficult for Apple TV to be successful for all the reasons he described. But what if these capabilities were built into the TVs people bought and they didn’t have to buy another set-top box? Wouldn’t that address the problem of getting it to the consumer in a way that they’re willing to pay for? The problem is this would never work for Apple because Apple, as we all know, is about controlling the entire ecosystem and experience, from hardware to software to services. They would never OEM the iOS to run on a third party TV. And for good reason. Remember Apple’s first attempt at a phone – the disastrous Motorola E790 Apple iTunes phone? Like the PC, music player, phone and tablet markets before, the only way it makes sense for Apple to get serious about connected TVs is to build an actual TV (on one hand this sounds far fetched, on the other, inevitable).
Not so Google. While Apple would need to build a TV to stay true to their ethos and address the go-to-market issues, Google, as exemplified by their Android handset strategy, is all about partnering with hardware manufacturers. In the case of Google TV, the most important of their initial launch partners is Sony. Sure, the Logitech box sounds neat, and will likely be adopted by AV geeks who don’t mind maintaining a rack of peripherals, but to Jobs’ point, most consumers don’t want another box when they already get one for free (or a nominal rental fee) from their cable operator. Enter Sony, who will be releasing the first TV to integrate the Google TV platform.
Sony, a once great electronics company whose market share on multiple fronts has been eroded by competition and market dynamics, desperately needs a hit. And Google TV, much more so than 3D TV in my opinion, may be just what they need to ignite a real turnaround (provided of course they don’t drop the ball on pricing, marketing, etc.). The Sony partnership paves the way for Google to deliver their TV platform to consumers in a way they’ll pay for, a new TV – directly addressing Jobs’ key concern of go-to-market viability. Provided the launch is successful I can only assume that other TV makers will rush to market with competing Google TV sets. It will also be interesting to see how Sony’s content holdings will play into this. Will Google TV provide a channel for direct delivery of Sony owned content? I have no idea but the possibility is interesting on several levels. We’ll see.
Having Google TV baked into TVs will be key to the platform’s success, but the main reason Google will succeed where others haven’t is the fundamental difference in their approach. This won’t be a separate, or alternate input to the primary TV viewing experience (like Apple TV, Boxee, Vudu or Roku). Nor will it be limited to standard cable/satellite content delivered through a better DVR (like Tivo). This will be the television experience. Forrester analyst James McQuivey put it best in the piece he wrote for paidContent last week:
Google TV will be a persistent interface that resides on your TV, giving you access to search functions (searching linear programming, web video, and even the general Web to get IMDB facts or background on the season finale of Glee) any time you’re watching TV, not just when you switch the input.
By partnering with leading CE manufacturers and taking a much bolder, more complete and immersive approach to the connected TV experience, Google is poised to reach and engage the millions of viewers who spend 4.5 hours a day watching TV, and by extension tap into the $70 billion dollar broadcast advertising market. For Google, this is clearly much more than a hobby.
Share:
Twitter
//
Facebook
//
Buzz
//
LinkedIn
//
Email
Posted: May 13th, 2010 | Tags: Kyte, Media, Mobile | View Comments
Note: The following is a repost from the Kyte Blog
In the last decade online video has grown from an esoteric hobbyist activity into a multi-million dollar business built around a thriving ecosystem of content creators, publishing and monetization platforms, and various enabling technologies, services and devices. Like many industries born out of the mass consumer embrace of the Internet, online video continues to evolve rapidly. It was only five years ago that the first video was uploaded and shared on YouTube, yet a scan of industry news today reflects a growing conversation around the myriad devices and endpoints from which audiences consume video.
Advances in broadband, computer technology and consumer electronics have ushered in a new era of Internet connected, video-capable devices (PCs, smart phones, gaming consoles, tablets, set-top boxes, etc.). Digital technology has also greatly reduced the cost and complexity of creating video content, resulting in the emergence of not only user generated video, but a greater output of professional and semi-professional video content from publishers for whom video was once cost prohibitive.
These two trends combined (increased distribution channels and low production costs) have resulted in an explosion of Internet-based video.
Since Kyte’s launch in 2007, one of our hallmarks has been our ability to anticipate the direction consumer demand is headed, and then innovate quickly to help video publishers meet that demand head-on. Most recently this has taken the form of turn-key application frameworks and SDKs for leading social, mobile and connected device platforms including Facebook, iPhone/iPad, Android, Blackberry, Nokia and Boxee.
Our product philosophy reflects our belief that audiences will continue to consume content across a broad variety and combination of Internet-enabled devices and platforms.
This is a belief supported by the reality of today’s media landscape:
The shift to digital continues
Media companies and marketers evaluating their video strategy need only to look to the news media to witness an industry that failed to innovate fast enough to meet consumer demand for digital content. As new online news and information delivery models (HuffingtonPost, CNN.com, ESPN.com, Craigslist.org) emerged, the ad dollar pool for local and regional print news outlets shrunk to a fraction of its previous size. Many smaller outlets have gone entirely out of business, and even larger news organizations (Gannett, AP, etc. ) have begun to feel the pain. Publishers that fail to innovate and embrace online, mobile and social delivery mechanisms will surely experience the same fate.
Digital has evolved beyond the PC
Delivery of video to the PC was just the beginning. Online audiences are spending increasing amounts of time consuming media from multiple platforms. The introduction of the iPhone and now the iPad have established entirely new markets for the delivery and sharing of live and on-demand video content. According to Nielson, mobile is now the fastest growing segment of video consumption. And connected devices like Boxee and Roku are meeting pent-up demand from consumers frustrated by the lack of freedom and control over how and when they consume professional broadcast and internet programming.
Digital is social
The days of centralized, one-way broadcasting are over. In today’s world of social media and transparency, video publishers need to create an authentic experience supported by the social dynamic of friends and like-minded individuals. Facebook and Twitter have become integral to today’s media consumption habits, with Facebook poised to revolutionize online advertising (in much the same way Google did with search) through “earned impressions” based on intricate social connections and behavioral history. To be relevant today and engage audiences, publishers need to create video experiences that integrate the social graph and provide a rich interactive experience.
These trends are amplified when video content is separated from static digital content. Video is commanding a much higher CPM than traditional display advertising, and advertisers are finding TV less effective as they shift dollars online. Combined with an avalanche of statistics that show more and more people are watching video programming online or on their mobile devices, media companies and marketers are faced with several compelling reasons to quickly determine how they are going to reach and engage with these audiences.
While consumer choice and emerging platforms have created new opportunities for publishers, and in some cases entirely new industries, these trends are also the key contributors to growing audience fragmentation, resulting in increased technical challenges for publishers looking to deliver rich video experiences to multi-platform audiences.
Adding to this, competing technologies and devices (and the companies who back them) are creating additional technical hurdles for publishers (the Flash vs. HTML5 war being the prime example).
In summary, for any organization evaluating how to best publish, monetize and scale video in what is becoming an increasingly complex landscape, it’s important to consider the particular goals of your organization and the many options that are available to you. Here are some decision criteria to help you get started:
- Evaluate your video strategy through the lens of your broader marketing objectives. Are you already reaching core audiences across social platforms? How about mobile? How can you converge these efforts under a single point of control?
- If you’re considering working with an online video platform (OVP) provider, examine how different vendors provide mobile, social and connected device capabilities. Can they provide these services natively, or do they work with third parties to provide this functionality? How deep are their roots in mobile and social technology?
- How quickly do you need to move? Do you need a partner with built-in native functionality across multiple consumption platforms, or can you handle longer development cycles?
- What are your content creation needs? Do you plan to leverage live and on-demand video? How about UGC? Do you have a means of easily moderating this content?
To discuss your own particular requirements and challenges in producing, managing and delivering multi-platform social video experiences, feel free to contact us.
Share:
Twitter
//
Facebook
//
Buzz
//
LinkedIn
//
Email
Posted: April 4th, 2010 | Tags: Consumer Tech, Productivity | View Comments
First off, I’m writing this post using the WordPress app for iPad (it works for both self-hosted and WordPress.com blogs). I started writing it using the iPad Safari browser but immediately ran into issues, which isn’t necessarily a shortcoming of the iPad’s browser. The WordPress editor, like many web apps, simply isn’t yet 100% compatible with the iPad browser.
While a lack of Flash has been the main topic of discussion around iPad/Web compatibility, the bigger issue is that many websites (Flash or not) will need at least some retooling to run properly on the iPad. In my limited use so far I ran into major issues with several Google apps, including Maps, Reader and Google Docs, while other sites like nytimes.com and amazon.com worked perfectly. Facebook mostly works but has a few issues.
No matter how annoyed you may be with all the hype, there is no question that the iPad is a magnificent device for media consumption. Within a few minutes of using the thing there is simply no denying it, and those that do deny it do so because they have, for reasons they themselves may not fully understand, decided to take an anti-iPad position. Fair enough. Given the almost religious zealotry of Apple enthusiasts, this is an understandable reaction. Wrong, but understandable.
But enough has been written about the basic virtues of the device for media and entertainment. I spend most of my time creating content rather than consuming it. I’m interested in how well, if at all, the device functions for day to day work stuff. I don’t imagine that the iPad will be a laptop replacement, but what about basic productivity tasks like email, calendaring and note taking?
Typing and Editing
I never learned how to type properly. In school I spent typing class, when I bothered to show up, designing band logos. By the time it mattered, it was too late. I had developed irreversible bad habits that never evolved beyond a somewhat effective but ugly six fingered technique that just barely gets the job done. For me the soft keys work just fine, but I can imagine they would be far from ideal for a real typist.
Editing is more of a challenge. I make lots of mistakes and often mangle my own work in an effort to improve it, relying heavily on the undo function to return my work to a prior, less sucky state. Most of the apps I’ve used, including this one and the built in apps like Mail lack an undo function. This is a software design issue and not an inherent limitation of the device itself. Apple’s own iWorks apps for instance do include undo. Regardless, I need undo in all my content creation apps, including Mail.
Productivity Tools
On my Mac and iPhone I use Things for GTD type task management and Evernote for note taking. The iPad versions of both of these apps are a joy to use, especially Things. The calendar app is on par with iCal and Contacts is the equal of Address Book.
Ultimately the utility of the iPad is entirely dependent on the apps. For now, I see myself using it for light email, note taking, calendar and task management. iWork seems promising and I plan to at least try it for document and presentation development, but I doubt It will be much more than a novelty for now. Same goes for OmniGraffle. I just can’t imagine being as productive with heavy content creation apps.
I do see the opportunity for future devices geared more for professional use that leverage many of the innovations first introduced with the iPhone and further refined with the iPad. Larger screens with multitouch interfaces for instances (think Minority Report meets the iPad). For now though my iPad will likely be relegated to content consumption and light content creation, like email and social media. Oh and by the way, after spending most of the weekend using the iPad, the iPhone feels freakishly small.
Share:
Twitter
//
Facebook
//
Buzz
//
LinkedIn
//
Email
Posted: March 21st, 2010 | Tags: Consumer Tech, Media, Productivity | View Comments
It’s easy to get distracted. Our computers and phones bleep and glow. Thirty new email messages. Six meeting invites. Four friend requests. As though email, IM, SMS, and RSS weren’t enough, we now have Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Foursquare and Buzz. We pull in that which interests us and the rest is pushed to us from those who seek our attention. We’ve become digital air traffic controllers, and we like it. It never gets old. Each new alert brings with it a small twinge of excitement. Who could it be? Is it good news or bad?
Creative productivity requires sustained periods of concentration. So does learning and comprehension. What many call “multi-tasking” is really a state of self-induced, Internet-powered attention deficit disorder. Those of us who know this (and care) have adopted defensive measures, often to the frustration of our colleagues.
Colleague: Hey Gannon, did you get that email I sent you regarding X.
Me: No, haven’t checked email in a while – I’m working on something.
Colleague: Really? I sent it like twenty minutes ago. By the way, Skype shows you offline.
Me: Right, because I am offline.
I bought an iPad the morning they went on sale. I believe it and other emerging Internet connected devices have the potential to revolutionize how we use computers and consume media. But for book and long form text reading it won’t replace my far less capable Kindle. The Kindle is a wonderful reading device precisely because of its limitations. Its simple interface, long battery life and lack of visual and functional distractions (even the clock display is hidden until you click the menu button) allows me to lose myself in the text, which to me is one of life’s greatest pleasures. The Kindle, like a lightweight version of its analogue counterpart, lets me read for long stretches without eye strain or recharging, secure in my knowledge that a message isn’t going to pop-up alerting me that some distant acquaintance just checked into Whole Foods w/ 3 others.
Share:
Twitter
//
Facebook
//
Buzz
//
LinkedIn
//
Email
Posted: March 17th, 2010 | Tags: Kyte, Media | View Comments
Note: The following is a repost from the Kyte Blog.
The most impressive thing about this year’s “South By”? Connectivity. Incredibly good AT&T 3G coverage and the best public Wi-Fi I’ve ever experienced at a conference. Period. The AT&T coverage didn’t surprise me given last year’s disaster (I wonder if AT&T’s additional infrastructure costs came out of their PR budget), but the Wi-Fi quality certainly did. Great connectivity, coupled with charging stations throughout the convention center made for some very happy (though exhausted and hungover) geeks.
We spent a good portion of our time camped out in the Blogger Lounge, where I had the chance to speak to several people about their experience and key takeaways from the conference. For many, the key theme was location based services, and in particular the perceived (real or media manufactured?) Gowalla / Foursquare rivalry. I agree that “LBS” is incredibly exciting, and it’s one of several trends that signify a broader, more fundamental and pervasive industry shift towards all things social (and mobile).
In speaking with people it occurred to me that the “interactive” or “digital” industry is now indistinguishable from “social media,” the “social web” or whatever you want to call it. No longer is it about a digital strategy including social capabilities. The principals that were once the exclusive domain of social media practitioners (authenticity, transparency, community, engagement, etc.) have become core and essential to any digital initiative.
One of the more interesting conversations I had was with Allen Weiner from Gartner. Allen is something of a media legend, having covered the space for over 25 years. Allen talked about the opportunities happening at the crossroads of social, apps and new, Internet connected devices – topics of particular relevance to the work we’re doing at Kyte in helping businesses to deliver multi-platform social video experiences.
Here’s Allen’s interview below:
The Internet connected devices Allen mentions, such as Boxee, Internet connected TVs, Internet tablets, etc. represent an opportunity for video publishers as potentially revolutionary as blogging was to text-based publishing. While “TV Everywhere” is fundamentally concerned with getting super-premium cable content to the PC, far more interesting is the potential for video publishers of all types to get online video content to the living room. These are exciting times for media publishing and in particular for those of us involved in helping to build the enabling technologies. And by “media publishing” I don’t just mean content produced by media companies. Make no mistake, brands are media publishers (see Homeaway or Armani Exchange), but I’ll save that topic for another post.
Share:
Twitter
//
Facebook
//
Buzz
//
LinkedIn
//
Email
Posted: March 13th, 2010 | Tags: Kyte | View Comments
If you’re at SXSW Interactive you may run into me and Maks, who’ll be out and about demoing Kyte LivePro Unwired, the newest addition to the Kyte Platform which enables broadcast-quality live streaming via 3G (and future 4G) wireless technology. Live streams are automatically archived for on-demand viewing, so if you miss an actual live stream, you can always watch the on-demand videos after the fact.
We put up a page where we’ll be broadcasting, so check it out to catch the live (and on-demand) SXSW action. Let’s just hope the 3G coverage is better than last year. Good news is that Kyte LivePro Unwired bonds several 3G cards from multiple carriers, so even if a particular carrier is experiencing difficulty (you know who you are), the others should compensate.
via Kyte Blog: Kyte @ SXSW 2010.
Share:
Twitter
//
Facebook
//
Buzz
//
LinkedIn
//
Email
Posted: February 22nd, 2010 | Tags: Consumer Tech, Media | View Comments
As reported by Wired Epicenter on February 12, Wired editor-in-chief Chris Anderson announced at the TED conference that his publication would be releasing an iPad version of the magazine this summer:
Anderson said the iPad allows periodicals for the first time to do digital content with all of the same values and artistic range that are the hallmark of print magazines. Wired Creative Director Scott Dadich worked with Jeremy Clark from Adobe (above) over the last six months to design the Wired iPad Magazine.
When I first saw this I assumed that Condé Nast had developed the prototype, perhaps in partnership with Apple, using the new iPhone SDK. But then something caught my attention: “Wired… worked with… Adobe… to design the Wired iPad Magazine.” Wait…. what? Flash won’t run on the iPad, so what’s going on here?
Well, it seems that the prototype is in fact a Flash (AIR) app developed in partnership with Adobe. So why is Anderson positioning this as an iPad app? It’s misleading and the smart folks in the TED audience (not to mention the Wired Epicenter readers) would surely see this as, well, bullshit. Plus this must have really pissed off Adobe. Remember, Wired Epicenter reported this as the Wired iPad Magazine prototype, referencing the one device the Flash runtime, and therefore the magazine prototype, won’t actually run on.
Confused? So was I until I came across this Adobe blog post on the prototype:
When the WIRED app becomes available as a consumer-facing product, readers will be able to use it across a variety of device types because Adobe AIR is cross-platform. And since the publishing world is abuzz about the forthcoming Apple iPad, we expect that through our Packager for iPhone feature (available in an upcoming version of Flash Professional), these types of AIR content apps will run on the iPhone and iPad.
Ok, so Adobe “expects” that Wired will be able to port the “tablet prototype” to the iPad using their as yet released Packager for iPhone. How Chris Anderson got from there to “Wired for iPad” seems like a stretch (with a big leap of faith thrown in).
Language translators and porting solutions seldom work 100%. They can save you time, but invariably the code generated is inefficient and requires significant optimization. But from what I can gather, the Adobe solution doesn’t port the source code to Objective-C for further manual optimization, but instead compiles an .ipa package for Apple devices, instead of a standard .swf binary, which makes things super simple for Flash devs, but doesn’t provide a way to further optimize the code before compilation. It’s quite possible that Adobe’s solution generates quality performant software (I haven’t actually talked to anyone who’s used it), but I’m skeptical that performance will be be on par with what can be achieved with native programming. And on mobile or other relatively underpowered devices, performance optimization is everything.
Of greater concern is the potential of the Packager for iPhone to cause a swift decline in UX quality of iPhone/Touch/iPad apps. A quick scan of the developer FAQ confirms my assumption that standard iPhone OS controls will not be available to developers. Plus I think it’s highly unlikely that the majority of Flash devs will adhere to (or much less read) Apple’s iPhone Human Interface Guidelines. We’ll see how that plays out.
In the meantime, if you haven’t seen it, check out the video of the Wired prototype. It truly is awesome and represents a future of exciting potential for Wired and magazine publishing in general. It’s also a killer demo of Adobe AIR technology. But it isn’t Wired for iPad.
Share:
Twitter
//
Facebook
//
Buzz
//
LinkedIn
//
Email
Posted: February 15th, 2010 | Tags: Consumer Tech, Media | View Comments
Joe Strummer once said “the future is unwritten,” and of course he was right, but that doesn’t stop us from trying. Last week I participated in a panel at the Future of Media conference, a small, bi-annual event held and organized by Stanford’s Graduate School of Business. Joining me on the panel were Jon Heller (FreeWheel), Jordan Hoffner (Electus/IAC), Jim Louderback (Revision3), and moderator Christine Herron (First Round Capital).
The panel, aptly titled “Build,” was supposed to be about disruption and competition, but, as these things tend to do, quickly evolved (or devolved, depending on your perspective) into a lively examination of the media ecosystem, including the current (and possible future) opportunities emerging for publishers (large and small) and tech start-ups. Panels can be hit or miss. The reason this one worked was because the audience was engaged, the panelists were good listeners, and each of us represented different, but interconnected pieces of the topics we were discussing.
The one trend we touched on that I continued to think about throughout the day was the emergence of Internet connected devices and what that means for media companies, publishers and tech companies.
Internet Everywhere
You may have heard about TV Everywhere, which is a multi-platform authentication initiative spearheaded by cable carriers to allow them to deliver subscriber-only cable content to online audiences. If you’re a Comcast subscriber, Fancast is their “TV Everywhere” initiative. Chris Albrecht from NewTeeVee put it this way:
TV Everywhere is an authentication system whereby certain premium content (TV shows, movies, etc.) are available online — but only if you can prove (or “authenticate”) that you have a subscription to a multiservice operator (e.g. cable, satellite, telco TV).
TV Everywhere is interesting, but also flawed, at least in its present state, as it assumes a future in which consumers want to watch long form TV content on their PCs. I think the inverse is true. Consumers of the future will consume Internet content on simple, TV-like devices. Think about it. Do you really want to watch hour long episodes of Lost sitting at your desk on a complex, swiss army knife-like piece of technology we call a PC? Didn’t think so. Now, do you want to consume and interact with Internet content such as news, social networks, music and video (including long form TV episodes) from the comfort of your living room on a crash-free, easy to use Internet connected device? Yep, me too.
This I believe is the “future of media” and it opens up some very exciting possibilities for consumers, entrepreneurs and publishers. This is one of the reasons I’m excited about the iPad, but Apple is only one of several companies helping to usher in an Internet Everywhere future. Others include start-ups like Netflix, Pandora, Boxee, Sonos and Vudu, as well as established CE manufacturers like LG, Sony, Samsung and Vizio, with their “Connected TV” devices, many of which debuted at this year’s CES.
For publishers and media companies this is extremely interesting. Just as the iPhone made it possible to reach consumers directly with mobile content and applications without relying on mobile carriers (yes, Apple is in some ways the new “walled garden” but they’ve also created an open, though regulated, publishing platform), Internet connected CE devices like the Boxee Box make it possible for content creators to reach consumers in their living rooms without relying on studios or carriers.
Now, this stuff is all very early-stage and bleeding-edge, and I certainly don’t predict that tomorrow we’ll all be ditching our laptops for Internet connected gizmos. But, it’s this and other possibilities that make the future of media and technology, though unwritten, so exciting.
Share:
Twitter
//
Facebook
//
Buzz
//
LinkedIn
//
Email
Posted: February 8th, 2010 | Tags: Mobile, Web | View Comments
There is a new wave of anti-Flash sentiment brewing, partially flamed by Apple’s refusal to support Flash in their mobile devices (including the iPad). The debate reminds me of usability guru Jakob Nielson’s famous Flash: 99% Bad piece from 2000, which at the time shook up the web dev community and ultimately resulted in better use, as opposed to abandonment, of Flash. This time around the issues are more complex and politically charged, but the outcome may be similar.
On the one side you have the Apple position that Flash is buggy bloatware and the primary cause of browser crashes on OS X, publicly voiced by Jobs himself. On the other you have the Adobe position that Apple, by refusing to support Flash on their iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad devices, is ruining the web for consumers by blocking access to a massive amount of rich media content. Google’s position in all of this is less clear. On the one hand they favor a web standards-based, HTML5-centric future, as demonstrated by their ongoing support of open web standards and the launch of a Flash-free, HTML5 version of YouTube. On the other they’ve pledged support for Adobe’s Open Screen Project. Despite these contradictions (or bet hedging) Google’s position seems for the most part in line with Apple’s. Where they differ is around a web-centric (Google) vs. app-centric (Apple) view of the world, but I’ll save that for another post.
Core to the Flash debate is online video delivery. While most of the interactive capabilities of Flash can now be done with standards-based browser technologies (html, css, js, etc.), video has remained largely Flash-dependant. Over the years Flash emerged as the one ubiquitous, last-man-standing browser plugin to support online video. This, coupled with Adobe’s server-side Flash Media Server technology, made Flash-based online video the only real game in town. Web developers know that most all of their end users will have the Flash plug-in installed. Not so with Real Media, Windows Media or even Silverlight, hence the demise of the former and the inability of the latter to gain a significant foothold. Now, with native support for video emerging with HTML5, Adobe’s long term prospects for retaining Flash video hegemony are threatened.
Kyte, the company I work for, is concerned with the delivery of video to both online and mobile audiences, which gives me a certain perspective on the subject.
Flash and online video
This battle will be won or lost by the publishers who build websites. And these publishers are, to a large degree, dependent on the tools and extended partner ecosystems of online video platform providers, who are themselves heavily invested in Flash technology. That alone should secure Flash’s position in the world of online video for at least the foreseeable future.
HTML5 promises a standard video format that can be delivered through any modern standards-based web browser. That’s great, but while the fundamental task of playing a video within a web page is central to online video, it represents only one aspect of delivering video online. There are also issues of security and encryption, standard video codecs, closed captioning and instream ad delivery, to name just a few key areas that remain dependent on an ecosystem built on Flash technology. Simply put, HTML5 has a ways to go before it can replace a complex ecosystem that currently depends on Flash for interoperability.
Mobile is a different story
Since we began, Kyte has been focused on making it easy for our customers to deliver their online video experience to mobile audiences. Before the iPhone and the emergence of mobile apps, this was accomplished entirely via a mobile web browsing experience. When a mobile user would access a web page with their mobile browser, we would delivery a video file native to that device.
We still provide mobile web delivery, but today, like everyone else, our focus is on mobile apps. But, like the mobile web, our mobile apps also deliver optimized native video formats. And of course the same will be true for the iPad, which is essentially a big iPod Touch. It all boils down to the simple fact that publishers want their video content available to iPhone and iPad users and they’ll build native apps for the iTunes App Store to accomplish this. At the end of the day it’s all about reaching users. Period. Posts such as this one by Adobe’s Flash Platform evangelist only serve to spook publishers and further motivate them to start coding native apps or HTML5 websites. It certainly won’t incite a boycott of Apple products. Yes, Apple is that powerful. Get over it.
So, in the world of mobile devices, where Apple has dominated and established an app-based ecosystem since replicated by it’s competitors, mobile video publishers will likely leverage neither Flash nor HTML5 for video delivery, but depend instead on the native runtime environments of the devices.
What should Adobe do
In terms of online video, Flash isn’t going away anytime soon, but it’s long term prospects aren’t great unless Adobe can address some key issues. Mobile on the other hand is likely lost to Flash, despite imminent support for Flash Player 10.1 for smartphones by all the top manufacturers but Apple. This won’t really matter since on mobile, it’s all about apps. (By the way, Adobe’s Flash to iPhone porting strategy doesn’t count, since we’re talking about the Flash runtime here – more on that in another post). So what should Adobe do?
- Make Flash an open standard and lobby hard for native .swf support in future html specifications
- Make Creative Suite a much stronger tool for developing sophisticated client-side web applications based on standards-based open technologies, like HTML5
- Make Flash Media Server capable of streaming media that can be viewed by either the Flash Player or emerging standards-based browser technologies like HTML5
Update (2/16/10): Today’s AIR 2.0 announcement is a brilliant move on Adobe’s part. The new version of AIR will allow Flash developers to create AIR apps for Android and Blackberry devices, to be distributed as standard apps in their respective apps stores. As stated above, it’s all about apps, and this announcement, coupled with the fact that these same apps can also be exported as native iPhone apps, has quite suddenly made Flash on mobile very relevant.
Share:
Twitter
//
Facebook
//
Buzz
//
LinkedIn
//
Email
