Comments on: The video revolution will NOT be televised, because it’s boring.

By: Sven

Sven — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:26:09 +0000

good conception but I am also sceptical about any video revolution to happen soon

By: Yahoo Live … dies « Joe Duck

Yahoo Live … dies « Joe Duck — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 05:38:34 +0000

[...] - not sure if I should be warming up to the video socializing idea I viewed skeptically earlier in the year, though as I noted before I’m not at all bullish on the monetization [...]

By: Current TV filing for $100,000,000 IPO. Initial PE ratio = infinity! « Joe Duck

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:11:06 +0000

[...] for online videos produced by … you and me. As I’ve noted before about online video, I don’t understand why people think video sites can make money. Youtube cost Google 1.6 [...]

By: turfreek

turfreek — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:12:47 +0000

Text is text. Jpgs are Jpgs. movies are avi, mpg, mov and on and on and on….

just another reason why video wreaks my head!

By: JoeDuck

JoeDuck — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:16:20 +0000

Dickey45 I agree that downloading videos will eventually come to largely replace DVDs and change how we relate to our TVs in very important ways.

My point is that online videos won’t come to replace text chat/email/blogs. Certainly online videos will replace offline videos – that is happening now.

By: Dickey45

Dickey45 — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:37:19 +0000

You might want to check out netflix. I’ve watched several movies and entire TV shows (Pan’s Labyrinth, Jeremiah, old movies). The quality is excellent and it is easy to use if you have a PC. Now there is no limit.

They are adding hundreds, even thousands all the time to their selection. At first there wasn’t much but now there are ones on their watch now list that are actually on my movie queue.

Once they get TV shows on there that are closer to when they are shown for the season and most new release movies I will stop my dishnetwork altogether. I’d rather pay netflix 20-30 a month for the few things we do watch than dishnetwork $60.

I see this as huge.

By: JoeDuck

JoeDuck — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:31:48 +0000

Thx for the thoughtful comments folks. Paul – thx for the mention at your blog!

Jim – I know video is hard which is one of the reasons I think it will continue to struggle. People want a quick hit of info, and doing that with vids is very hard. Even at their absolute best they are not digestable nearly as fast as equally clever pictures and words.

Deekdeekster – I am making a value judgement here, focusing on whether we’ll see a big shift from current mixed info formats to video info formats, and predicting no because video formats tend to suck. I don’t understand how you scan videos for the relevant quality info – scanning does not give you the words. Sure there are videos like the clever “Web 2.0″ bit by a professor that convey a lot of info very quickly, but that’s a total exception to the normal rule of 10 to 1 or worse noise to signal in videos.

By: deekdeekster

deekdeekster — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:18:15 +0000

Comparing text to video in this way is not comparing like with like. I blog, and I video blog. I also write and make videos in a traditional, more old fashioned way. My writing leads me into video, video making leads me into writing. I like both for different reasons.

So what if you can’t scan videos (actually you can, I do – there’s a fast fwd which I use) video delivers information on a different level to text. The benefit is in the differences, and I appreciate both.

Your language reveals your bias. “cheap little entertainment bits” to you are moments of great joy to others. Just because a video isn’t a three hour film doesn’t make it a worthless or a lesser form.

By: Jim Kukral

Jim Kukral — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:44:38 +0000

It’ll come. The biggest problem right now is that most video isn’t that great to watch. Either it’s boring or it’s not produced well enough to actually be able to watch.

But that will change as technology gets better and people become better at using it. Give it time.

I do a web show at my blog, and it’s hard to do, very hard.

By: Paul Parkinson

Paul Parkinson — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:19:01 +0000

Joe, you hit that on the head. With something like Twitter (for example) you can scan hundreds of posts very very quickly for the interesting posts. With Seesmic you can’t – you have to watch them all in their entirety. Not there yet – but I live hope that it will get there one day.

I hope you don’t mind but I’ve cross posted to my blog with a link back here. Great posting.