Home > All Posts > Sort by Topic
Topic #1552

no video iPod?

By Jay dedman | Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> | kinshasa2000
October 28, 2004 | Post #1552 | Topic #1552

http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1008113.html make sure you scan the comments..... Steve Jobs supposedly said there would be no video iPod.... he believes the screen is too small and theres not enough LEGAL content to make it worthwhile... hope its not true. [View]



Re: [videoblogging] no video iPod?

By Joshua Kinberg | Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> | joshkinberg
October 28, 2004 | Post #1554 | Topic #1552

Video iPods may not be the solution to carrying full length Hollywood movies, maybe not right away anyhow, for the reasons Steve Jobs states. But, you can certainly carry tons of video clips on your iPod -- home movies, sports highlights, news items, funny shit. There just isn't a good way to play it back, or really a good way to get that content until something like Vipodder takes off :-) I want to store videos on my iPod, show them to people, play them on my TV the same way iPod Photo does. There is plenty of content out there, and content producers for this medium -- and a lot of it may be Creative Commons stuff which can take care of licensing issues. I think a lot of people are excited here -- we are at the forefront of a something very powerful. --J On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:54:20 -0400, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> wrote: > > http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1008113.html > make sure you scan the comments..... > > Steve Jobs supposedly said there would be no video iPod.... > he believes the screen is too small and theres not enough LEGAL > content to make it worthwhile... > hope its not true. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [View]



Re: [videoblogging] no video iPod?

By Joshua Kinberg | Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> | joshkinberg
October 28, 2004 | Post #1555 | Topic #1552

Oh, and I forgot -- reading the comments in the Russel Beattie post.... 3GPP format! Are any of us thinking about producing content in that format? I know Quicktime Pro can export in 3GP, not sure about iMovie... I guess the only advantage of using it would be if you expected people to play it on their iPod screen (which doesn't *yet* support it) or on their cellphone (has anyone actually watched video on their cell phone yet in this group?). Which means, currently you would have to download the file to your computer and transfer to your mobile device -- probably using Bluetooth or a wired connection. Or -- cell phones will soon include aggregators to download the content themselves -- either while "docked" and connected to the Net, or on the go... Do you think people would subscribe to videoblogs from their mobile device in the near near future? Andreas: This seems like a better use of rel="alternate" --Josh On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:23:21 -0400, Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> wrote: > Video iPods may not be the solution to carrying full length Hollywood > movies, maybe not right away anyhow, for the reasons Steve Jobs > states. > > But, you can certainly carry tons of video clips on your iPod -- home > movies, sports highlights, news items, funny shit. There just isn't a > good way to play it back, or really a good way to... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] no video iPod?

By M. Sean Gilligan | "M. Sean Gilligan" <seanlist@...> | M_Sean_Gilligan
October 28, 2004 | Post #1557 | Topic #1552

>http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1008113.html >make sure you scan the comments..... > >Steve Jobs supposedly said there would be no video iPod.... >he believes the screen is too small and theres not enough LEGAL >content to make it worthwhile... >hope its not true. I think Jobs is being smart here -- I don't think it is the result of him fearing piracy of his Pixar movies, as some have suggested. He doesn't want to promote something and then have people find it is a disappointment -- remember the iPod has a huge user base and incredible press coverage. If Apple is going to do video, anything less than "runaway success" will be considered a failure for Apple. Neither, the technology or the mainstream user are ready for a video iPod at this time. Further, Apple's competitors are trying to one-up Apple by putting video in their devices, and he doesn't want to appear to have a product that is "less" than the competition. My prediction is: He'll let Microsoft, et. al. achieve disappointing sales with their portable digital video devices, and then, when they start to get traction, he'll launch a video iPod that is easier-cooler-better(tm). People like us will use the iPod for video to the best of it's current capability. Once *we* figure out what we want to do and build some working "prototypes", then Apple will add really nice video support and say "Things have changed. Our customers are demanding this."... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] no video iPod?

By M. Sean Gilligan | "M. Sean Gilligan" <seanlist@...> | M_Sean_Gilligan
October 28, 2004 | Post #1558 | Topic #1552

>3GPP format! Are any of us thinking about producing content in that >format? I know Quicktime Pro can export in 3GP, not sure about >iMovie... I've been producing and posting content in this format for some time now: http://msgilligan.blogspot.com/2004/10/don-cochrane-tells-me-about-digital.html http://msgilligan.blogspot.com/2004/10/dan-gillmors-talk-at-san-jose-state.html This one is two 10-second clips (which is all my phone can do) pasted together in QT Pro: http://msgilligan.blogspot.com/2004/09/john-malkin-on-fcc-raid.html This is my oldest one that is currently on-line: http://msgilligan.blogspot.com/2004/06/katie-in-car.html It was taken and posted from a moving vehicle! (I added more text later...) vBlog Central allows posting of 3GPP content via e-mail, so it works with any cellphone that has e-mail capability. > >I guess the only advantage of using it would be if you expected people >to play it on their iPod screen (which doesn't *yet* support it) or on >their cellphone (has anyone actually watched video on their cell phone >yet in this group?). I've also watched Movie Trailers in Real format on my phone, but I've actually used the phone more for taking short clips than watching them. (Jay, I haven't figured out how to hide my phone in a tomato yet!) >Which means, currently you would have to download >the file to your computer and transfer to your mobile device -- >probably using Bluetooth or a wired connection. I have a Nokia 3650 (about 1 year old) and it can download 3GPP movies over HTTP and "stream" real format. The newer ones will stream both 3GPP... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] no video iPod?

By Joshua Kinberg | Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> | joshkinberg
October 28, 2004 | Post #1560 | Topic #1552

I used to own a Nokia 3650. Some of you may know what happened to it... http://www.bikesagainstbush.com/blog/hardball.html It was fun to capture video with my phone and email it or post it on a TextAmerica blog -- quality was shit, but fun to play with. But, I never really used it to watch other video content -- other than self-created videos. Maybe this was because there wasn't much available that I'd want on my phone. Or, maybe because I didn't want to wait to download stuff over GPRS (slow and annoying). I think I would be way more likely to subscribe to a blog rather than traditional media content. Watching movie trailers isn't appealing to me... Maybe I'm not quite the standard consumer, but I'm probably not alone on this list. --Josh On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:13:50 -0700, M. Sean Gilligan <seanlist@...> wrote: > > >3GPP format! Are any of us thinking about producing content in that > >format? I know Quicktime Pro can export in 3GP, not sure about > >iMovie... > > I've been producing and posting content in this format for some time now: > http://msgilligan.blogspot.com/2004/10/don-cochrane-tells-me-about-digital.html > http://msgilligan.blogspot.com/2004/10/dan-gillmors-talk-at-san-jose-state.html > > This one is two 10-second clips (which is all my phone can do) pasted together in QT Pro: > http://msgilligan.blogspot.com/2004/09/john-malkin-on-fcc-raid.html > > This is my oldest one that is currently on-line: > http://msgilligan.blogspot.com/2004/06/katie-in-car.html > It was taken and posted from a moving vehicle! (I added more... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] no video iPod?

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@...> | andreashaugstrup
October 28, 2004 | Post #1561 | Topic #1552

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:30:50 -0400, Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> wrote: > Andreas: This seems like a better use of rel="alternate" It's one very good use of rel="alternate" to create links to different media formats. Like I think I wrote yesterday: <ul id="movielist"> <li><a href="movie.mov" rel="alternate" type="video/quicktime">Quicktime</a></li> <li><a href="movie.mp4" rel="alternate" type="video/mp4">MPEG 4</a></li> <li><a href="movie.3gp" rel="alternate" type="insert-content-type">3GPP</a></li> </ul> The definition of rel="alternate" has already been set down in the HTML spec. It just designates multiple versions of the same resource. It's not limited to different file types, but also translations. -- <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/&gt; Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. [View]



Re: [videoblogging] no video iPod?

By M. Sean Gilligan | "M. Sean Gilligan" <seanlist@...> | M_Sean_Gilligan
October 28, 2004 | Post #1562 | Topic #1552

>I used to own a Nokia 3650. Some of you may know what happened to it... >http://www.bikesagainstbush.com/blog/hardball.html Didn't realize that was you! If I'd been on the bomb squad, I'm sure I'd have been impressed with your work, too. Are they holding everything as evidence for a pending trial? What's the excuse? > >It was fun to capture video with my phone and email it or post it on a >TextAmerica blog -- quality was shit, but fun to play with. But, I >never really used it to watch other video content -- other than >self-created videos. Maybe this was because there wasn't much >available that I'd want on my phone. Or, maybe because I didn't want >to wait to download stuff over GPRS (slow and annoying). My experience has been the same. It's been great for capturing short video clips of the kids and I used it to do some "citizen journalism" when I happened upon the FCC raid of Free Radio Santa Cruz. I'd say that this phone is a proof of concept. The Nokia 7610 (http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/7610) has better video and built-in editing functions but is still on GPRS (haven't seen one yet.) and is not yet available in the U.S. The Nokia 6630 (http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,,58708,00.html) has better video and EDGE support, but is even further away from U.S. availability. This is the one I'd like to get. I know another American who has imported more advanced models from... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] no video iPod?

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
October 28, 2004 | Post #1563 | Topic #1552

But doesn't rel="alternate" describe an alternate version of the container? Or is that only for link and not a tags? On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Andreas Haugstrup wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:30:50 -0400, Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> > wrote: > >> Andreas: This seems like a better use of rel="alternate" > > It's one very good use of rel="alternate" to create links to different > media formats. Like I think I wrote yesterday: > > <ul id="movielist"> > <li><a href="movie.mov" rel="alternate" > type="video/quicktime">Quicktime</a></li> > <li><a href="movie.mp4" rel="alternate" type="video/mp4">MPEG 4</a></li> > <li><a href="movie.3gp" rel="alternate" > type="insert-content-type">3GPP</a></li> > </ul> > > The definition of rel="alternate" has already been set down in the HTML > spec. It just designates multiple versions of the same resource. It's not > limited to different file types, but also translations. > > -- > <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/&gt; > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > [View]



Re: [videoblogging] no video iPod?

By Joshua Kinberg | Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> | joshkinberg
October 28, 2004 | Post #1564 | Topic #1552

Here's a good reason why no video iPod *yet*. Of course, as this article points out, most products are intended for consumers. We are creators, and that is a fundamental difference. From: http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/gartenberg/archives/004021.html I saw some interesting theories why three's no video iPod. I won't get into the argument about whether consumers want mobile video. There's clearly a segment that does and I won't debate that side of the argument. The argument I read today goes since Steve Jobs owns Pixar he doesn't want illegal movies ripped. Perhaps. But that's not the reason. It's because unlike music, it's illegal to rip a DVD to your hard drive, Pixar or otherwise. Simple. No same company wants to get into that legal issue with the studios and provide those tools. Not Apple. Not Microsoft. In fact, the reason MediaCenter Extenders won't stream DVDs from your MCE to the device is that in order to do so they need to be decrypted to send the stream. That's illegal too. Should it be? Of course not, but at the moment, it is. The only other source of legal video content is recorded TV and Apple at the moment has no interest in playing in that market. Should they? Perhaps, but that's another story. Now there's always personal created video but the market for that is tiny... really, really tiny. Call me and I'll show you how small those numbers are. There's a reason we... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] no video iPod?

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
October 29, 2004 | Post #1565 | Topic #1552

A nitpick: it is not illegal to rip a DVD to your hard drive or any of the other things claimed to be illegal. DVD manufacturers are constrained by contract from making it possible for you to do those things, software makers mabe constrained from shipping software that helps you to do those things. It is not illegal for you to do those things. On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Joshua Kinberg wrote: > > Here's a good reason why no video iPod *yet*. Of course, as this > article points out, most products are intended for consumers. We are > creators, and that is a fundamental difference. > > From: > http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/gartenberg/archives/004021.html > > I saw some interesting theories why three's no video iPod. I won't get > into the argument about whether consumers want mobile video. There's > clearly a segment that does and I won't debate that side of the > argument. The argument I read today goes since Steve Jobs owns Pixar > he doesn't want illegal movies ripped. Perhaps. But that's not the > reason. It's because unlike music, it's illegal to rip a DVD to your > hard drive, Pixar or otherwise. Simple. No same company wants to get > into that legal issue with the studios and provide those tools. Not > Apple. Not Microsoft. In fact, the reason MediaCenter Extenders won't > stream DVDs from your MCE to the device is that in... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] no video iPod?

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@...> | andreashaugstrup
October 29, 2004 | Post #1567 | Topic #1552

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:05:46 -0400 (EDT), Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> wrote: > A nitpick: it is not illegal to rip a DVD to your hard drive or any of > the > other things claimed to be illegal. DVD manufacturers are constrained by > contract from making it possible for you to do those things, software > makers mabe constrained from shipping software that helps you to do those > things. It is not illegal for you to do those things. That depends a lot on what country you're in. Danish copyright law recently got ammended to get in line with the EU's inforsoc directive making it illegal to create digital copies. - Andreas -- <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/&gt; Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. [View]



Re: [videoblogging] no video iPod?

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@...> | andreashaugstrup
October 29, 2004 | Post #1571 | Topic #1552

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:47:47 -0400 (EDT), Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> wrote: > But doesn't rel="alternate" describe an alternate version of the > container? Or is that only for link and not a tags? rel="alternate" means the same on both <a> and <link> elements. It describes an alternate version of the current document. - Andreas -- <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/&gt; Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. [View]



Re: [videoblogging] no video iPod?

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
October 29, 2004 | Post #1573 | Topic #1552

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Andreas Haugstrup wrote: > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:47:47 -0400 (EDT), Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> > wrote: > >> But doesn't rel="alternate" describe an alternate version of the >> container? Or is that only for link and not a tags? > > rel="alternate" means the same on both <a> and <link> elements. It > describes an alternate version of the current document. I think that implies that rel="alternate" is not an appropriate way to annotate links which point out of the current document, then. We should maybe spin off a group to solve this problem... - Lucas [View]



Re: [videoblogging] no video iPod?

By Jay dedman | Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> | kinshasa2000
October 29, 2004 | Post #1575 | Topic #1552

we once talked about this a while ago.... should we split the group into DEVELOPMENT(videoblogging) and EVERYTHING ELSE(videoblogging)? the past reasoning for staying one group was that the users learn from the developers. is this still true? i like the tech talk. what does everyone else think? On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:54:01 -0400 (EDT), Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> wrote: > > > On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Andreas Haugstrup wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:47:47 -0400 (EDT), Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> > > wrote: > > > >> But doesn't rel="alternate" describe an alternate version of the > >> container? Or is that only for link and not a tags? > > > > rel="alternate" means the same on both <a> and <link> elements. It > > describes an alternate version of the current document. > > I think that implies that rel="alternate" is not an appropriate way to > annotate links which point out of the current document, then. > > We should maybe spin off a group to solve this problem... > > - Lucas > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [View]



Re: [videoblogging] no video iPod?

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@...> | andreashaugstrup
October 29, 2004 | Post #1576 | Topic #1552

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:14:54 -0400, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> wrote: > i like the tech talk. > what does everyone else think? The tech-talk might increase considerably. I like having everything on one list, but I fear that the tech-talk as you call it might drown out the non-tech-talk. Personally I don't mind splitting things into two lists if the tech-stuff begins to take over (as too techy talk can scare of new community members). - Andreas -- <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/&gt; Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Tech talk – was: no video iPod?

By Rick Rey | "Rick Rey" <rick@...> | vivarey
October 29, 2004 | Post #1577 | Topic #1552

> i like the tech talk. > what does everyone else think? I like it too, for the most part, but I'd like to see the discussion more balanced. I want to hear more from the people who are producing original video. We can talk tech until we're blue in the face, but I think it's easy to get caught up in that and ignore the larger picture. After all, nobody is going want to subscribe to our feeds unless we can deliver quality content. Also, I think we have to be careful not to turn people off, especially new members. The videoblogging process is daunting enough as it is. -Rick [View]



Re: [videoblogging] no video iPod?

By Christopher Weagel | Christopher Weagel <humandog@...> | ronnalddd
October 29, 2004 | Post #1578 | Topic #1552

I appreciate all the hard work people are doing on the tech end. I just find it incredibly boring reading about only it all the time. (of course, I'm just as guilty for not posting about other topics) Hopefully the folks working on all of this stuff, once it's refined enough, will post the info/tutorials on videoblogging.info. I don't know about splitting the group. If there was as much conversation on here about content/philosophy etc as there is tech stuff, it would be fine to leave as one group. Don't we need more conversations about non-tech stuff before it can justify its own group? Don't we also need more people producing more content on a regular basis to comment on? Hello to all the members just lurking around here. MAKE SOME VIDEO! Chris On Oct 29, 2004, at 2:30 PM, Andreas Haugstrup wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:14:54 -0400, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> > wrote: > >> i like the tech talk. >> what does everyone else think? > > The tech-talk might increase considerably. I like having everything on > one > list, but I fear that the tech-talk as you call it might drown out the > non-tech-talk. Personally I don't mind splitting things into two lists > if > the tech-stuff begins to take over (as too techy talk can scare of new > community members). > > - Andreas > -- > <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/&gt; >... [View]



Mitosis – was: no video iPod

By M. Sean Gilligan | "M. Sean Gilligan" <seanlist@...> | M_Sean_Gilligan
October 29, 2004 | Post #1579 | Topic #1552

I think we should split off a videoblogging development list, for the following reasons: 1) There is already a lot of traffic on this list with two lists people have a better chance of getting the content they want. They can choose none, one, or both... 2) We don't want to scare off newbies. Videoblogging should be so easy that videobloggers don't have to worry about the technology. [We're working hard on vBlog Central with this goal in mind.] It isn't quite there, yet, so there will need to be *user-oriented* tech talk and group support on the videoblogging list. However, development-level tech talk should move to a new list. 3) I agree with Chris, that there should be more discussion about content and philosophy on *this* list. Moving the *development* talk off should help. 4) The issues we are discussing about syndication and meta-data are very important and we may want to attract other experts into the discussion, who may not be interested in videoblogging, per se. There will be enough cross-fertilization between the lists that people who are not on the development list will learn about whatever breakthroughs we achieve, so I don't think people who only subscribe to this list will miss out on anything important. I think it's time for our embryo to evolve from a one-celled life form to one with two cells. -- Sean -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M. Sean Gilligan : 831-466-9788 x11 Catalla Systems,... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Tech talk – was: no video iPod?

By Rick Rey | "Rick Rey" <rick@...> | vivarey
October 29, 2004 | Post #1580 | Topic #1552

> we once talked about this a while ago.... > should we split the group into DEVELOPMENT(videoblogging) and > EVERYTHING ELSE(videoblogging)? If a division does happen, I think we need to be careful how to distinguish between the groups. After all, this thing we talk about -- videoblogging -- is a very technical thing. There's a fine line between a "development" issue and a "general" issue. Topics like production, non-linear editing, storage, encoding... these are all issues at the forefront of the videoblogging process. I don't want people to miss out on those discussions, because they are put off by technical talk about RSS feeds, enclosures, etc. Because most of the recent tech talk is focused on one particular area -- the development of distribution/syndication technologies -- why not just create a new group focused specifically on that topic? This really wouldn't create a huge divide in the community, but it would allow those developers to do their thing without turning people off. -Rick [View]