Internet Broadcasting by Dave McIlroy

TVs Get Smart - Would you believe?...

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:17:00 +0000

Kicking off 2012, CES has wrapped and what stood out? The TV - who knew?

Yes phones are smart and the mobile spectrum is exploding but it was the TV that grabbed the most attention at the year's CES Las Vegas. What does this mean for Internet Broadcasting? Everything!

For many the initial launch of GoogleTV in October 2010, came and went with without much attention. That is unless you were in the industry at which point it was a significant event. Both in it's launch and more poignantly in it's lack of success. Content providers dropped like flies leaving the new platform with little more than a grandiose hardware interface for YouTube. Then Logitech a major partner along with Sony announced it was abandoning their support for the Logitech Revue, the device running GoogleTV. What would come next? Google known to drop initiatives that failed to catch (Wave, Buzz etc.) was holding the cards close to the vest. The company again under the helm of co-founder Larry Page, was focused on getting "social". Google+ was making noise and attempting to lure users from Facebook to the concept of "Circles". Android OS was passing Apples's iOS as the leading phone platform. Chrome browser in 2011 edged into the # 2 slot and of course Google maintained it's supremacy as the search engine, "just google it". So industry watchers have kept a close eye on GoogleTV to see what might transpire. According to GoogleTV product manager Rishi Chandra, "Android is going to be a successful operating system on TV's"

Last year the fad was 3-D TVs. Really more of a gimmick than a technical leap forward. Who knows, 3-D may play a significant role at some point but not before we merge the TV and the computer. It is this convergence that was the underlying message as manufacturers rolled out their latest.

Samsung made a serious impression with the newest OLED models.
LG wins best of CES with the a 55" model 55EM9600
Sony lead the way by introducing the OLED prototype in 2009, this year it was Crystal LED
While the obvious attention is on what we see from these new sets, reading between the lines and noting this announcement, where LG will feature GoogleTV in new products, it is the year that TV's GET SMART. Topping it all off was Google's announcement at CES, Next version of GoogleTV releases in 2012.

What this means for all those wishing to become their own media broadcast companies, is the technology has come full circle. From streaming to desktops to HTML5 based applications that play video on 7" phone screens and the larger tablets, we have come back to the in home "couch potato" experience, the passive TV viewing experience. With new sets embedded with computer chips, the TV will have the ability to seamlessly switch between BluRay, Cable and Internet channels. This is not the exclusive domain of GoogleTV by any means, Apple is said to be launching a new TV, it may not be this year but they will not be left behind in this new gold rush. Microsoft is desperately trying to be relevant, it will all depend on the success of Windows 8. Then there is Facebook. Would you put anything past these guys?

All in all, this is the year to stake your claim in the billion channel universe. How many viewers do you need to make your channel successful? Not many. So long as you have content that an audience is interested in and cannot find elsewhere, you are all set. The domain of the giant broadcasting corporation still rules the roost, but where they cannot compete is in local media, amateur sports and entertainment and even home town news. The time is now, get your camera, computer and start shooting!

Video is Evolving -- Don't Get Left Behind 11/15/2011

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:54:00 +0000

Video was it, is still it and always will be it. From the the first time a kid sat in front of a screen and the movement and sound caught their eye, they were hooked. It doesn't matter how it gets delivered, cable, DVD, download, or stream the viewer is insatiable.

I liked this article in MediaPost, it presents interesting facts surrounding use of video.

MediaPost Publications Video is Evolving -- Don't Get Left Behind 11/15/2011:

It is critical to recognize that just putting a video on a web site or in a blog is not good enough any more. With so much to choose from and limited time (even with mobile devices now giving us even more access), the viewer wants to be compelled. Audiences expect more and we can give it to them. We all have something to say, the key is to not suck while saying it. Become your own broadcast media company. Put up your own broadcast antenna so to speak. Make your point relevant, honest and poignant. Your audience will find you.

Flash - Today's 8-Track Tape Player

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:05:00 +0000

For some of those reading this the reference to 8-track tape will not even resonate. 8-track was a technology that came and went because it was only a temporary solution and never really that good. There was no point in fighting it, if you invested heavily in 8-track tape media (as some have invested today in Flash media) you were going to be left with the hefty cost of replacing your media and hardware (in today's case streaming infrastructure).

Flash advocates and those heavily invested in the plug-in are dragging their heals and fighting a similar yet inevitable battle as the 8-track generation. Flash was a temporary solution to what is now a 10 year old problem. Flash was okay, looked cool and solved some challenges but it has never been that good. And now with the proliferation of mobile computing on handheld devices Flash has met the end of it's useful life cycle.

Why is Flash today's 8-track? Because as it was with the 8-track, the delivery systems and technology has advanced to a point where Flash is too bulky. Mobile devices need to run light so as not to consume battery life too quickly. Flash as a plug-in takes a lot of computing resources, thus consumes energy rapidly. Apple's statement to never support Flash on iPhone or iPad was not only prolific but technically correct and the industry has logically followed. Not because Steve Jobs decreed it but because it is the logical evolution of media to smart devices.

It can be confusing for someone who keeps an eye on the latest gadgets (phones, tablets,. etc.). At a glance it would seem that Blackberry and Android based devices have adopted Flash, thereby keeping the plug-in relevant. In actuality this is no different that the cross over stereo of the day which had both a cassette and 8-track player.

In the 10's decade online media appears to be the domain of Apple and Google. Although Microsoft today has had the unenviable persona as an un-hip and uber behind the times sloth, they still have an install base that cannot be denied or ignored. So when Redmond announces Windows 8 and IE 10 and makes it abundantly clear that the new age is HTML-5 (plug-in free browsing), one still must take note.

Apple - No Flash
Microsoft - HTML-5
Google - WebM

Like the deprecation of the 8-track, when all the major labels stopped producing titles in the format, it was over. The web's "major labels" above, have made it very clear what the future of mobile browsing will be and that is a plug-in free software environment. The desktops, set top boxes and gaming consoles will all follow.

Unfortunately no one is likely going to buy your Flash based streaming media site at a flee market or garage sale even if they are nostalgic for that old format. Best bet is to cut your losses and look ahead but do be careful. As I write this today, HTML-5 is still bleeding edge. Few companies have had the required experience with it nor do they have the knowledge and background on the evolution to make it work correctly. So when you approach providers to assist you, ensure that you are dealing with a company that has the skill set and can accurately explain the migration to HTML-5. After all, you wouldn't want to spend a kings ransom only to find out that you had inadvertently banked on the equivalent of HD-DVD

Going, going... Silverlight

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 06:40:00 +0000

The writing has been on the wall for some time. Microsoft Silverlight was nothing more than a reactive response to Adobe's Flash. As Flash will ultimately go, Silverlight already has. Get over it! We no longer use Morse code either.

Microsoft, in order to have any place in the evolving "cloud based" Internet, have more or less left Silverlight for dead as their latest OS Microsoft 8 is presented to developers.

The frustrated pro Silverlight Developers, flooded and flamed MSFT Silverlight forums.

I can appreciate the frustration that these developers are experiencing but it's over boys and girls. Time to move on and realize that the future is HTML5.

This also means Flash is history. Although Adobe is putting up a good fight, they cannot stave off the inevitable memetic transformation that is video without plugins.

Heeeeeeere's WebM!

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:52:00 +0000

With Larry Page (co-founder, Google) replacing Eric Schmidt, all eyes are on the company to see what new culture Page may bring. Perhaps the most recent push of WebM is an indication.

Google Chrome browser dropped support for H.264 in January 2011, around the same time Page took the helm. There is a distinct commitment to promote the HTML5 platform and this has been made even more apparent with YouTube announcing that it is WebM transcoding all of the new videos uploaded and at the same time "reformatting" the existing library.

According to the YouTube Blog, the H.264 video codec will still be accepted as an uploaded format but WebM is the playback.

Opera, and Mozilla are fully behind this move and the recently released IE9 is HTML5 ready. So we will be seeing more an more video content streaming to HTML5 based players embedded in web pages, blogs etc.

This translates big-time for the smartphone market. HTML5 can run on a smartphone with far less overhead than Flash. As Android OS based phones continue to expand into the marketplace, content providers will be scrambling to transcode their titles and streaming video platforms will need to bite the bullet and swap out the Flash based front and back end systems.

Below is a sample of HTML5 based video. Note you will need an HTML5 compatible browser to view WebM and you will need to Join the HTML5 trial

Internet Broadcasting: A Look Forward into 2011 and Beyond

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 03:02:00 +0000

In an interview with Streaming Media magazine, I was asked for my observations, trends and predictions based on the current state and future status of the Streaming media industry. In this article, among other issues, we discussed how models shift from free (ad supported) to pay based content. By conditioning an online audience that highly specific content is a good value proposition, thus smaller content producers have aided the larger aggregators like Hulu and Netflix in gaining market share. The article supports some fascinating findings from comScore for example, "Twenty-nine percent of those surveyed like the fact that it is easy to discover new shows by finding them online; 13% just plain prefer the online viewing experience, and 9% either don’t have a TV or, if they do, don’t subscribe to cable or satellite".

The conversation always wants to shift to "traditional TV Vs online broadcasts", this is not germane to the discussion. The big networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox) will most certainly be around and will continue to produce content for traditional TV. What we have seen is content moving online as well as airing as a TV broadcast. Maybe it is segmented into clips or in other cases it is full episodes but very often it finds its way to a web portal / content site. Where the conversation needs to focus is what we know as Cable TV and delivery. As more and more users find it convenient to download or stream programs to computers, STBs and related mobile devices, Cable becomes redundant as a linear broadcast stream. Just look at the amount of infomercial content that has begun to air closer to prime time. You never saw that ten years ago.

Also of interest in the article is a look at the explosion of STBs (set top boxes) that make it simple to connect an Internet Broadcast stream to a TV, standard or HD sets. At PlayFullScreen we have leveraged this to enhance the viewer experience for the content that many of our clients produce.

Looking forward to the next 3 - 5 years, more advertising dollars are going to find their way into and around streaming video content. 2011 looks to be the breakout year for Internet Broadcasting. If you have content like, sports, entertainment, lectures and how to demonstartions, become your own broadcast media company, the timing has never been better.

You can find the entire article at StreamingMedia.com

As forecast - Big Media Comes Looking for Little Media Content

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 04:58:00 +0000

Not to sound smug... no I take that back. I am a bit smug on this one.
Your content matters and you should become your own broadcast media company.
I have been advocating this for some time now, advising my clients that the time to begin broadcasting online is now! Get a jump on the learning curve. Perfect your production techniques, work on better lighting and audio. Try different camera angles, etc. As you do this, you will be considerably ahead of others who are surely to follow. The logic I have used and claimed was based on the trends that were and still are clearly evident. Internet and Television are melding. Digital channels and 24 hour specialty networks need original content. This has now escalated to the giants of TV, The Networks.

NBC's Owned and Operated Stations are looking to partner with nonprofit news organizations

Under the terms of the FCC order approving Comcast’s takeover of NBCU, at least half of NBC’s 10 O&Os have to find a nonprofit news center with which to work within the next year. Will other networks follow?

While the FCC has focused on news reporting, this may be the tipping point for other content like sports, arts and entertainment and lecture series.

In Canada, the CRTC has a major issue on their hands. As the big Cable and Telephone companies continue to buy up television networks, radio and specialty channels, the balance of power is amalgamating in the hands of a few. Independence in news and other community interests is being lost to corporate cost cutting and down sizing. Will the CRTC step in and demand that Rogers, Shaw, and Bell look to independent non-profits for news? If so, this would quickly lead to other content partnerships.

While the major networks in Canada are slow to learn, once they have a model, it becomes a game of follow the leader. As these media giants continue to lose cord cutting customers to Internet only accounts, it will become a race for original online content even in "micro-niche" segments. After all, eyeballs are eyeballs and if the new paradigm is to reach them any way you can, then acquiring access to the viewers of this narrow cast content will be on the agenda.

The opportunity for independent content publishers to work with networks will happen sooner than later in Canada. The last attempt by the big three (Rogers, Bell & Shaw) to lobby the CRTC and force "usage based billing (UBB)" on Internet subscribers has blown up the CRTC's face. As the backlash mounted the CRTC had no choice but to bow to the pressure and review the ruling before it was ordered to do so by the government. With this issue potentially skirted, there is nothing to get in the way of the natural progression of online content becoming common place in Canadian's homes.

Online Viewers - Conditioned To Expect HD Streams

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 18:39:00 +0000

Isn't HDTV great? All one needs to do is watch your favorite HD program in Standard definition and it becomes obvious. We are spoiled now. No matter whether it is sports, reality TV, drama or news, we have really gotten use to the resolution 1080p.

As hard is it is to go backward from your favorite HD program to SD, so too is viewing webcasts (online streaming or Internet broadcast) in the compressed video format once we have become accustomed to high resolution video and in particular HD.

The challenge facing the industry at the moment is an appetite for HD resolution which is ahead of the curve. That curve being the last mile delivery speed, the home network (modem, router, NIC) and the video processing capability of the computer or device being used for playback. The online viewer is generally non technical and doesn't relate to the complex series of integrated elements that need to get along in order to stream an HD video over the public Internet backbone. Because the DVD player works well, so too should the streaming video on their brand new computer. At least that is their perception.

Let's assume that the ISP has the broadband capacity all the way through their network to the home and sustaining a 2Mbps (2000kbps) live stream is possible. The signal enters the home across a modem which has 100/1000Mbps network capability. That modem is either a WiFi (802.11) enabled device or the modem connects to a WiFi router which then in turn connects to the wireless laptop, desktop or other device in the home. In many homes there are multiple devices all accessing the router / modem. It is at this point that the live HD stream would typically fail, buffer, etc. To the end user anticipating the HD viewing experience on their brand new computer connected to their rocket fast Internet connection, it would seem that everything is in place. It is unfortunately not that simple if the home environment is WiFi.

WiFi is susceptible to environmental issues (metal, other frequencies, the neighbors WiFi) and while the user has no issue with websites, email and even the odd YouTube video, streaming a live HD video requires optimal conditions.

The other issue with home networks that can be confusing to the average user is local network traffic. Today it is common to have three or more computers connected and accessing the Internet simultaneously. This should not be a problem and usually is not when email, Facebook and web surfing is the predominant activity. However younger users tend to be more active with downloading torrents (movies, music), streaming Hulu, Netflix or similar while Mom and Dad logon to the HD stream and become frustrated that it is not playing correctly. The technical reason is data collisions or chocking within the home network. One cannot see this and so it is often diagnosed by a non technical person as an issue with the content provider.

So we have a real conundrum on our hands. The marketplace wants HD streaming, the technology appears to be in place to allow for it, yet the failure rate it still very high.

As the HD content service provider, it is challenging position to be in. The model is clearly heading in the direction of live HD streaming. Manufacturers are building devices capable of playing 1080p live streams. ISPs are upgrading their networks from the core to the pillow. So as the content provider what can one do?

The only solution appears to be; move ahead and face the backlash from the consumer. It comes with the territory. If the content provider does not build now for the HD market, they will be too far behind to catch up when the elements synergistic-ally meld to allow for uninterrupted deliver of HD video. One must do their best to educate the consumer and manage their expectations. Over time, the marketplace will smooth over and the issues which now appear to be major ones, will be minor. Then we can all start over and retrain our attention on those same expectations from the mobile smartphone phone and tablet users, which are sure to follow on the heels of the current challenges.

Note: The writer Dave McIlroy has been an innovator in streaming media since the earliest days of webcast (1995).

Google drops H.264 from Chrome - knee jerk or brilliance?

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:25:00 +0000

For the average consumer this recent move by Google won't mean much. Early adoption of web enabled devices for "TVeverywhere" is still limited to a fraction of the market. It will impact all those otherwise oblivious users of devices like the PS3 and Xbox, the iPhone and iPad, the Blackberry and new Playbook as well as anyone using Mac OS and Safari. When put into this perspective it should earth shattering news. So far only the developers and service providers wrestling with standards have taken notice but here is why you will want to pay attention.

Google owns their own media codec like H.264, it is now called WebM (formerly VP8). Google initially stirred the pot when they announced WebM would be open and free to use (royalty free) unlike H.264 which is owned by Mpeg-LA The move from Google caused Mpeg-LA to relax the licensing and royalty for the H.264 codec but many saw this as a bait and switch. Get users to adopt H.264 thus further proliferating the codec and then hit the market with the license fees. Nonetheless H.264 was already widely in use and with iPhones and iPads flying off the shelf, it is the codec wrapped in Mp4 that allows one to view videos on these mobile devices. NOTE: Apple made it abundantly clear; their devices would not run Flash, so files with the .flv extension will not play, whereas files with the extension .mp4 (H.264) will.

Browsers begin to adopt HTML5
With great promise for new development and standardization of the <video> tag, HTML5 was announced as a new standard with the exception of the video tag. As a non-technical backgrounder, we use browsers everyday without giving any thought to how or why we are able to see images within our preferred browser. That is because the <image> tag was adopted with standards such as .jpg, .gif .bmp etc. Prior to a standard the "old school" world wide web users had to run a picture viewer that could interpret the file type and render this into an image. Netscape Navigator 1.0 made it simple for a new user by doing this through the HTML tag which told the browser that "filename.jpg" was an image and it should be displayed in the assigned area.

The same could and should apply to video but there is so much more at stake today. Instead of making it a standard we instead have "plugins" to make our video play. Flash, Silverlight, Quicktime are the most popular and depending on your preferred browser these plugins either work well or create all kinds of issues. As a new update is released we are nagged to get the latest "fix". As browser versions change we are often plagued by broken links or failed video streams. This is all due to the multiple formats, plugins and coding requirements that a web site developer must consider each time they author a page.
A footnote: At the browser level the software has the ability to recognize the tag <video> and play a format called Theora (ogv, ogg). This format is open source and free as it is unencumbered by patent licensing restrictions. Critically it currently falls below the performance standard of H.264

HTML5 would eliminate this. All browsers, regardless of MacOS, Windows, Linux etc. would play video without plugins or proprietary applications. This would undoubtedly fuel advancements and move the technology forward dramatically. However, by not adopting the video tag standard it left the Behemoths of the online world to battle it out.

Apple and Safari (Macbook, iPhone and iPad) have taken a hard stance adopting H.264. There are many economic reasons for this including a number of patents around the format.
Firefox and Opera support Theora and the open source ogv format
Microsoft IE9 has added support for H.264 and WebM
Google Chrome supports Theora, WebM and currently H.264*

* Google has announced in a blog post that they will be dropping H.264

Why the consumer should care:
Consumers will spend upwards of $600 for a mobile device (tablet, phone, e-reader etc.) There is no standard set for the video delivery to these devices. In order to keep current website and online media developers have used H.264 with a "fallback" to Flash to cover 99.9% of all scenarios. This makes the devices capable of viewing high quality streaming video in both live and archived formats.

Consumers are embracing online delivery of TV and Movies (Hulu, Netflix etc.) and the market has responded to this by introducing devices known as set top boxes (STB) which interface your TV with the Internet and allow the viewer to control the screen with a simple remote. Game consoles (Xbox, PS3, Wii) also have the ability to play online media in multiple formats including H.264

Could your device soon be obsolete? By removing H.264 from the Chrome browser (Google's web browser) this signals the ultimate battle line; Google Vs Apple. Google claims the move is about open development and innovation and by supporting WebM and Theora (both open and free) this will align Firefox, Opera and Chrome. This leaves Apple as the champion for H.264 / Mp4 (again Flash is not in the picture). Microsoft had interestingly become the diplomat. IE9 has added support for WebM and a Firefox plugin for H.264 as well as continuing to nurture the often overlooked Silverlight* media suite

* Silverlight supports digital rights management (DRM) and as a result becomes essential to studios and TV networks when online delivery of premium content is concerned.

Google's Android OS takes over smartphone OS. Android OS is gaining enormous adoption in the smartphone space and has recently rivaled iOS as the top OS in use. Apple still controls the majority of hardware but Android is the OS across more phones such as Samsung and HTC. Android is powerful yet light, making it ideal for other smart devices such as your TV, car, and home appliances. All these smart wired devices would of course incorporate video streaming as a feature. In order to operate within the limited power requirements video would need to be supported at the browser level, HTML5 and WebM being the logical architecture and delivery.

Conculsions:
Google may be provoking the patent lawsuit which would involve Mpeg-LA and Apple, whereby standardization would occur if Google was found to be clear of any patent infringements. Hardware device manufacturers would be clear to invest in the adoption of WebM and to a lesser degree Theora. Apple and Safari would then be more or less forced to comply or risk alienating themselves as "us against the world"
Google has a lawsuit with Oracle over their Andriod OS which uses Java. Android OS is an essential component to the proliferation of WebM. Google may be pushing all these to a head thereby clearing the path for the next generation of development.
Google's philosophy would appear to be the driver behind all these moves. If successful it would be true that the future development of video would open and this would drive advancement. It would also be true that Google would have significant control of almost every aspect of the online environment (search, mail, mobile, video), as a result Google would know our every online move and behavior.
Microsoft does not appear to be in any position to challenge the status quo. Windows 7 mobile has a mere 1% of the share and while Windows OS is still miles ahead of anyone else, PC sales growth is more than 7% below projections. The Microsoft Keynote at CES 2011 mainly addresses Win Mobile 7 and XBox - Kinect. Nothing about Windows 8 or Windows TV.

Summary: Hold off buying any gadget of significant price, that is unless you are okay with having a short life span with that device in order to stay with the curve. I am of the opinion that we will see 18 - 24 months of frustration at the developer level as it pertains to online accessibility to video and the coveted TVEverywhere ubiquity. That does not mean that one cannot accomplish the 3-screen objective for video viewing. For under $100 you can get a Roku device which will let you dabble in online media to TV. The iPhone, iPad and recent Android based smartphones will play Mp4 video and there are workarounds so that non Flash based content will stream live and on-demand. Of course the desktop is where it all started and if you are prepared to update, install and uninstall browsers for the next while you will get a sense of what is coming. Meanwhile, we the consumers will have to wait a while longer as business interests worth 100s of billions of dollars are fought out in the courts and in the boardrooms. CEO's egos are at stake after all and I would not want to bet against Steve Jobs. In any case it is going to be one hell of a fight and at some point we the consumer will be told what to do, what to buy and how to behave with our new toys.

YouTube's success is chocking itself - Spammers benefit

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 22:11:00 +0000

The more successful your video becomes on YouTube the less likely you are to benefit. Spammers have learned to watch for high traffic clips and then hammer these with links and promotions spamming anyone wanting to view comments pertaining to the clip itself.

This defeats the social aspect of video viewing and should certainly be a concern should you wish to share the link with friends

Forwarding or posting a link to a popular video just increases the reach of the spammers. In otherwords it is self defeating

This will ultimately lead to reduced interest in the viral aspect of YouTube thus chocking on it's own success

The good news is that YouTube has trained the masses as to the effectiveness and interest in online video. Becoming your own Internet Broadcast media company is more beneficial than trying to gain attention via YouTube. Online producers of Internet Broadcasts can control their own views and traffic by embracing new technology that puts publishing and distribution into their hands. The tide is turning and it is very positive for all those looking to be the antithesis of YouTube, Myspace and other similar social video sites and apps.

Intel Chip "Insider" unlocks HD Movies for streaming

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 19:27:00 +0000

One of the knocks against HTML5 video has been the lack of security or DRM. Intel may have resolved this at the chip level. A new chip feature called "Insider" will allow for a protection layer to unlock 1080p content from online streaming services. New graphic technology is also being included in the chip to speed up video. The Core chips are based on a new microarchitecture code-named Sandy Bridge. They will not currently support DirectX 11 at the this time.

Studios have been reluctant to release titles in HD due to piracy concerns. Apparently the technology acts as a security blanket for end to end delivery. One would need the new chip to view content which would be the Blu-ray equivalent of 1920 x 1080.

With H.264 video and HTML5 ready browsing a set top box such as Roku could now be the interface between your big screen TV and the Internet pipe feeding your home network.

This points to services such as Netflix and Amazon increasing competition with Itunes.

HTML5 is undoubtedly the way things will go for video it is the logical next step. Plugins and updates to software, browsers and operating systems will be a thing of the past. It will not matter what OS you run or what browser you use, everything will just work.

If Intel has their way, it won't matter if you are a Mac or PC user, either way the next block buster HD movie you stream will require you to have their Insider featured chip.

Canadians watch the most online video

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 17:07:00 +0000

Broadband and mobile data proliferation in Canada point to a big year for Internet Broadcasting in 2011. More and more viewers are tune out of cable and seeking narrow cast content online. This current study shows trend.

It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood - for another copyright debate

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 01:01:00 +0000

Bill C32 - if you are a Canadian here is why you should care:

Liberals Preparing C-32 Amendments on Digital Locks & Fair Dealing

If you have ever made a copy of recording, a movie or a TV show, you may have broken the law. The debate over fair dealing and blatant piracy has been around for a long time. It shifts as technology changes but the core issue is the same, money and control. When the VCR first appeared as a device to "time-shift" programming, networks lobbyists insisted on regulations, levies and protection. One who saw the value of time-shifting as a great way to share information with more viewers was Mr. Rogers of the PBS program Mr. Roger's Neighborhood.

The following is taken from a Globe and Mail article "How the new copyright bill will affect Canadian culture"

In a U.S. courtroom that year, the Sony Betamax was under fire for what was already being called time-shifting – taping a TV program to watch at a later time. One person who took the stand in defense of time-shifting, surprisingly, was childhood icon Mister Rogers.

At the time, Mister Rogers’ Neighbourhood was watched by some 3-million families a day. Should those viewers be allowed to make copies of Neighbourhood, and other shows, on their new videotape recorders, he was asked?

Mister Rogers’ answer was an emphatic, yes.

“I have always felt that with the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the Neighbourhood off-the-air ... that they then become much more active in the programming of their family’s television life,” he told the court.

“Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My whole approach in broadcasting has always been ‘You are an important person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions,’ ” Fred Rogers told the court.

Traditional Media's Last Offensive

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 05:58:00 +0000

First off a clarifying statement: I do not have any affiliation, investment or personal stake in Google. I do not even have an adsense account. I am a user of their services like gmail, apps and search. I am a bit concerned about their size and influence but no more or less than other companies like Microsoft, Apple Intel etc.

This post is not at all intended to come to the defense of Google, (like they need my help), it is however intended to point out why I believe they are being inaccurately attacked in the traditional media. Specifically as it pertains to their newest foray into what is described as Google TV.

When the giants of traditional media come under attack, the first response is denial. I believe it really is because of a sense of invulnerability. Big Media has controlled distribution and content for so long, they cannot even fathom that they are losing relevance. Their attitude suggests that they are collectively omnipotent. Take the recording industry for example: Technology built a digital distribution network of 25 million users all connected by a common application. Napster was growing at 2 million users per month and showed no signs of slowing down, when the recording industry brought their financial might down on the fledgling company of music sharing geeks. Killing Napster was supposed to return control to the recording industry. It never did. The only company that seemed to grasp the potential of Napster was Bertelsmann as the service transitioned into a pay for use service. However the bloom was off the rose, the time to leverage Napster was 8 - 12 months prior. By utilizing P2P distribution and encouraging users to download the latest hit song in the highest quality form possible, the industry could have charged a flat fee to access content on Napster. At the time every eleven year old girl would have insisted that they have the new Britney Spears single and paying $5 per month even as a one off, would have netted $30mm in a single month. The opportunity was not to be and is now relegated to one of the great industry blunders, along with the Edsel, New Coke and the IBM-PC operating system

With the turmoil surrounding music file sharing now ancient history and iTunes owning the legitimate space due to the inability of the recording industry to recognize the future, let's turn our attention to the "boob-tube" and it's evolution to Google.

The first real attempt to converge TV as we knew it and the Internet or as it was referred to in 1995 as the "world wide web" was a horrible user experience called WebTV. Ultimately bought out by Microsoft, this box did sell but the joke was on those who tried to use the NTSC 4:3 television screen to view what was written for the computer VGA monitor. Great idea wrong time and technically it came up way short.

As media on the Internet quickly realized the masses were not ready to forgo the passive viewing experience requiring only a handheld remote, for a blurry small image that needed media players and special software not to mention a keyboard and mouse for the most part. That does not even take into consideration that no one was willing to pay for content and advertisers did not yet understand the metrics involved around the new model. So online media went into a dark age for almost ten years. It was to re-emerge however, leaner and meaner. Now with bandwidth and processing power readily available a renaissance had occurred. YouTube, Hulu, and Bit-torrents became the video equivalent to Napster. Some of it legal and some - not so much. What was clearly evident in this second waive was the consumer appetite for content everywhere. TiVo changed TV viewing and interfaced couch potatoes with digital technology as seamlessly as the handheld remote once had. Digital media was the Television industry's new killer app and once again they were too arrogant to recognize the opportunity.

Some might say that Television studios have embraced the new digital distribution technology and Hulu is evidence of that. While it is certainly a more progressive step in the right direction than their Recording Industry counterparts, it is still a territorial defense tactic and not a truly ubiquitous methodology. The big media studios need to get out of their own way. They spend more time trying to prevent theft then they do getting content onto the three screens their viewers have now fully embraced. HDTV sets, Desktop computers and Mobile devices are all equally important.

If history proves anything the big media companies are too close to their own offerings to be impartial. They are myopic and have missed miserably on most if not all of their ventures in tech AOL-Time Warner and MySpace ala NewsCorp to name a few. As Apple ipodded, iphoned and now ipads us into the next waive of media accessibility and usage, Google too has a strategy. World domination takes time however and Google is making moves slowly and seemingly unobtrusively. Firstly, they needed their own operating system. Then a web browser. While they were at it how about a mobile phone or maybe a better idea would be to have their mobile operating system on other manufacturers devices. So far so good; OS, browser, mobile, what is next? How about video? Now that Google has a compression codec to send digital media over the Internet all that is needed is an open source language to make it zoom, (HTML5 - video tag).

As has been Google's strategy, they do not shove their solution down one's throat. As witnessed with their mobile phone offering, Google is quiet prepared to place a product in the market and let other companies build in and on and around it. Hence the latest device Google TV.

With Google's resources and a successful little video site called YouTube in their stable, making a TV device only made sense but this is not about video snacking and Justin Beiber wannabes on YouTube or the video indexing capabilities within their search engine. This is about the final step toward full convergence. This is what WebTV envisioned fifteen years ago and what every streaming media pioneer dreamed of since 1995. This is now about access to the most coveted space of all, the living room. Remote in hand passively viewing the billion channel universe.

So what have we learned from history? Big media companies first deny the existence of a threat, then they throw billions of dollars at defensive tactics. Next they buy the technology and attempt to apply antiquated strategies on a model that no longer exists. Finally they draw upon their biggest weapon, that is their own infrastructure. They use the reach and puppets on the payroll to create a diversion.

Here is where we are at as of today. Google TV launches October 2010, quickly NBC Universal, Fox and Disney block access to Hulu, followed by ABC and CBS, then Fox. Viacom announced today that it too is blocking access on the Google TV box. "Would the last one left please turn out the light?" Now everybody write about it. Talk about the price point being too high. Tell the public that the device doesn't really work. Reiterate that unless it comes from the big media system it is not really TV. Blah blah blah.

Big Media's Jugular: No one really cares about the regurgitated crap that appears on the dial. Reality TV? The reality is, they have run out of ideas. The more that networks produce the pathetic blather being peddled as must see TV, the more people are jumping online. If I am going to watch crap, I'll watch it from a web site, I'll watch it while I am riding the bus. I'll stream it to my flat panel TV when I want it. Time means nothing it is all about being digitally available. The big media companies are going to do exactly what the recording industry did. They are going to Napsterize Google TV. Only this isn't Napster and we are not talking only about college kids. This is everybody now!

Google does not need to win this battle. They will simply sit back and let the media giants collapse in on themselves.

Here is where the war is lost: Content is king - this is a truism. However content now comes in billions of shapes and sizes. "There is an audience for that". The next great movie, TV series, game show, talent contest can now just as easily be delivered by Internet and to any screen (TV, desktop, mobile). Big Media will not stop this, they are so completely and utterly out of touch with reality, that they will repeat the same mistakes made only a decade ago. As Big Media flexes it's muscles and bangs it's chest, Google will wait patiently. They do not need to prove anything.

After all, it was not that long ago that we believed no company could displace Yahoo, Go.com, Altavista, Excite, Lycos and other familiar names like these. Ultimately we all began to try this simple page to see what kind of search results we would get. Soon we were no longer searching, we "Googled".

While Big Media in all their arrogance believe they are limiting opportunity, Google has been distributing an operating system. Android is now on more new mobile phones than Blackberry. Android is being embedded on chips in new HDTV monitors. While Big media is relying on the TV remote to be the old trusted friend and the only interface of choice, the Chrome browser is steadily replacing Internet Explorer as the default. As TV networks fumble to integrate Tweets and encourage you click "Like", MS Outlook is being swapped out for Google Apps. Blockbuster files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection while WEbM and HTML5 is in the hands of the geeks that brought us YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Bit-torrents and formerly Napster. New video production and distribution methods are in test labs as we speak, these will appear on devices like Apple TV, Roku and WD TV. Viewers have been trained to use devices like TiVo. Now software like Boxee is becoming common place. Google TV has a marketplace that is certainly getting warmed up, so there is no need for concern on their part and they can certainly afford to wait.

We are seeing the last days of Big Media. The power is shifting to the masses and that which was controlled by a few will now be produced by millions. Not only does this not fit the Big Media model, they have absolutely no way of implementing infrastructure to take advantage of it. Big Media blew it and so it goes, we evolve to the new model.

In the not too distant future we will all sit back and watch some Google.

Not-MySpace... FaceSpace maybe?

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 08:22:00 +0000

It was not that long ago that I heard a net savvy commentator warn that MySpace should be wary of the rapid growth that was making it the place on the Internet for "social interaction". Shortly after hearing this comment NewsCorp announced that it was paying $580 million in cash to acquire Intermix Media Inc., a Los Angeles-based company whose chief asset is MySpace.com. Shortly after that Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion in a stock-for-stock transaction. It looked at the time as though Rupert Murdoch had stolen MySpace in comparison.

I found myself thinking about the comment I had heard. The point was simple, MySpace was a big deal because it was the "new - new thing" but what would happen when the cool early adopters did not want to be hanging around in the same "Space" as every other garage band and social network newbie? These mavens would go looking for other cool hangouts to adopt and make these the happening scene to be a part of.

Along comes Facebook: 550 million users later MySpace is all but forgotten and finally has no alternative but to concede that in order to survive MySpace must partner with Facebook.
Yet again, we see a Media Mogul wade into the online space and fail. Although MySpace is not officially dead, this has to be seen as a half billion dollar failure. Under NewsCorp's direction MySpace languished, it could not reinvent itself or sustain the cool persona it had once relied on to recruit new members. Was it doomed to die this kind of a death from the start? Perhaps but YouTube seems to have maintained some relevance and Facebook is always coming up with new gimmicks good or bad.

It would seem that the cyber world's bon vivant yesterday is tomorrows dumpster diver looking for table scraps. Just when something becomes hip and cool, it is no longer worth belonging to. Will Facebook and YouTube fall upon a similar laissez-faire? Time will tell. Meanwhile, we should learn from casualties of the online social network space. Even though the term has just recently entered our digital lexicon there is enough evidence of more failures to come. I am betting Foursquare is the next to go down.

In summary a fad is still a fad and recognizing the online equivalent is not that difficult. Using these fads as tools to create awareness of your product, service and or message is fine. Building your entire strategy around them would seem dubious at best.

The Hubris of Traditional Media

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 23:27:00 +0000

There is a lot to be said for wisdom and expertise. In most cases it requires many years to gain the knowledge that formulates the sage advise that lends credibility to one's name.

On the other hand those years of experience can sometimes become an anchor or maybe even one's security blanket. This is especially evident in areas that are experiencing rapid change and paradigm shifts. Take the traditional media industry for example.

It was 2002 when I met with the program director for one of the country's largest radio stations. Between the family of AM and FM stations under his direct control, they enjoyed the largest listening audience anywhere outside of Greater Toronto. I proposed a web portal that would become an online repository for local news, sports and entertainment. It would be produced by the existing reporting staff and augmented with what we now refer to a user generated content (UGC). While the main news station could only dedicate a few minutes to a breaking story, the web portal could go in depth. Local sports that would rarely if ever crack the newscast, could be featured and so could streaming broadcasts of the games. I proposed that by moving first before any other media group, this station could become the largest aggregator of geo-relevant media anywhere in the country. The PD I met with was known nationally as an innovator, a died in the wool radio man. He thanked me for my proposal, said it sounded interested but never acted upon it.

I had often wondered why, until recently when I began to read articles written by the same, so called expert class of media types. These articles took shots at the new media folks. We were labeled blue sky dreamers and rainbow chasers. They, the one's who had built radio, TV, movie studios etc. would determine how and when the market would adapt. Who was I to say that these successful business people were out of touch? Why would someone who had made millions of dollars in traditional media listen to someone from outside their power circles?

Then I understood: These words were defensive. They came off with such confidence and eloquence but they were rife with hubris and fear at the same time. The reason no one was willing to make any changes was because they did not want to be the one to bring it up in a management meeting. It was easier to maintain status quo and hope like hell they could retire before the floor caved in underneath them. Break from the flock? Never! It was too risky and this was not a risk business.

Instead of trying new ideas and looking to embrace change, instead of risking a mistake, these executives commissioned studies to prove they were right. We have all read them, the reports that leave you with the feeling that maybe you are the one who is crazy. After all, traditional broadcast media had a century to perfect itself. Then after a minute or two of reflection, you realize, "no these guys really are out to lunch."

Big traditional media has taken to building a walled garden, rather than taking the necessary risk required to become a leader. Like the program director I met with, it was too risky to introduce something that revolutionary at the time. Yet, there is another even bigger reason to hold on to the traditional model. It is the vehicle of control. Media and advertisers control you; but only when you let them.

As the giant media companies watch Pay TV subscriptions shrink for the first time ever, they publicly blame the housing slump and economic slow down. Meanwhile, we watch smartphone sales surge. Are we getting the whole story here?

The arrogance that once lead media moguls to reach heights of power unimaginable to average Joe, will now prove to be their undoing. Now average Joe can have his day. Today, we can become our own broadcast media companies. If you stop for a second and think about that, how big do we really need to be, to be successful? We don't need to invest millions of dollars in TV pilots. We don't need to have three million viewers to be taken seriously. We have the ability to create and broadcast media that matters to us. Our content matters the most, not the latest reality show. In the media content we control, we can tell the truth, not censor opinions because it may offend a sponsor. This is the new power circle and we are more powerful than traditional media wants us to know.

Next time you turn on the radio or television ask yourself, "am I doing this out of habit? Is there another way I might get content to listen to or view?" You will surprise yourself. What is appointment TV? If you can record it and watch it an hour later, the next day, the next week, then why does it matter what time it airs? You will again surprise yourself and in some cases not even bother to watch the recording. By cutting the cord from traditional media, time that you would otherwise spend viewing the latest hit TV show is now yours again. What might you do with it? Why not spend it uncovering little know facts about the companies that just spent millions to advertise to all those people still plugged in? You will be surprised and now maybe a little pissed off.

When your outrage regarding all the lies that have been perpetrated on you via traditional media become significant enough, remember the earlier statement. You can become your own media company. You can become a truth teller. Now how many people do you need to share that message with to be successful? Just one. As long as they share it with one more person as well.

This is why Traditional Media is out of touch, scared and barking like a vicious dog, they cannot change their model. It will cost them the power and capital they have become addicted to.

Interestingly, if we cease upon our unique positions, it is one of the greatest periods ever for mankind. The barriers to entry have never been lower. The technology has never been more available or cheaper. Information, truthful information has never been more abundant if you look for it.

As the mighty empire of traditional media falls, those who are really paying attention will benefit tremendously from the spoils. It's all up to you.

Mobile Device Security - Market War Tactic?

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:23:00 +0000

When one talks about the Mobile Device marketplace it literally refers to a billion plus units. Those numbers obviously equate to enormous sums of capital, so the stakes in this game are astronomical.

The high rollers; RIM, Apple (device makers with OS) and Google (Android OS).

RIM staked out high ground and put the "crack" in every business person's blackberry.
Apple made their positioning statement "No Flash on iPhone or iPad"
Google released Android as the Open Source OS, which was adopted by HTC and others

In the last 90 days, RIM has had to bend to the Indian government's request to make their data more accessible. Apple has come under fire for trying to assert omnipotent control over mobile content distribution, as they maintained the "no-flash - not ever" policy. Google announced Google TV and Android is now in Sony's HDTVs, all the while the OS has gained market share faster than anyone would have predicted.

So the stage is set, let the battle begin:

Apple sends out via the media, the first wave of attack striking at any mobile device that uses flash. The list includes Android OS phones and will affect RIM.
Did RIM anticipate the flanking move and simply avoid enabling the ability to run flash on the Torch 9800? Adobe does however make an appearance on the Playbook with Adobe Air.
Google meanwhile has no restrictions to running Flash on Android OS 2.2 and their OS has just taken the lead with 43.6% of all devices shipped in the third quarter now running Android.

With blood in the water the sharks are circling and the collateral damage from the initial strike appears to be Adobe. The security flaw which has now been acknowledged as serious by Adobe itself has the potential to impact not just mobile by all devices running Reader, Acrobat and Flash.

The timing is quite convenient for Apple. The security flaw with Adobe requires a patch to the Flash player. How many times have you need to update the plugin lately? It almost seems as if Steve Job's knew of this vulnerability all along. In a way I guess it is pretty much what he announced when making his defining statement "Thoughts on Flash" pertaining to Flash on iPhones et al.

So what does this mean to the marketplace? Adobe has a lot a stake here and will surely patch the problem but is the damage to their reputation already insurmountable? Might Adobe now be required to spend more time on rebuilding their reputation than fighting the Flash battle? If that happens what does this mean for RIM and Android OS?

Without the positioning of "we are Flash friendly" the Playbook is just another tablet and more or less a new toy for the Crackberry devotees. Android OS on the other hand has played out the scenario perfectly. By not excluding Flash or even getting into the war of words, Google took the high ground. Their claim is simply, "we were open to all development". Google looks like the Swiss, establishing a neutral position while the casualties mount around them but don't award the Nobel Peace Prize just yet. Remember Google owns an open source video codec called WebM (formerly VP8). WebM will certainly run on Android and because it is declared Open Source it is available to anyone else, including Adobe and RIM.

So the battle field shifts to video on the web and specifically mobile devices. Apple with WebKit has announced their move toward HTML5. Google even used WebKit for the Android browser. Google maintaining open source practices has fully integrated HTML5 into their business model, Chrome browser and Android OS are HTML5 ready. RIM's Playbook will have Adobe Air and HTML5, Flash apps will run via Air or WebKit. So the fly in the ointment becomes, what wrapper does one use to deliver video to the mobile device with? Wrappers carry the codec H.264 (mpeg4) WebM, or Ogg Theora to the device media player. You will notice that Microsoft Windows Media is absent from this list. That topic is worthy of an entire blog unto itself, but for context read this statement regarding Silverlight, if you feel WMV is germane to this discussion.
Wrapper options for mobile are Flash, Quicktime or the video tag within HTML5.

Apple embraces the H.264 codec and obviously Quicktime as the player / wrapper
RIM is on the fence so PlayBook has Flash for H.264 and HTML5 for WebM or Ogg Theora
Android remains open but clearly has a vested interest in the proliferation of WebM

As a footnote: H.264 requires a license from MPEGLA to be used commercially. WebM is free as is Ogg Theroa

To summarize: The tactic of exposing security issues with Flash has one objective, marginalize Flash as the wrapper / player and in so doing eliminate devices that use the Flash player. The defensive response from RIM will be to embrace HTML5 which is still sorting out the codec that will ultimately become the default video tag which will still take at least two years. Google has WebM and Android which is gaining market share rapidly. Therefore the battle comes down to two combatants, Google and Apple, Android and Mac iOS, Quicktime and WebM, H.264 and VP8.

As you go to your local consumer electronic store to get your next mobile gadget, keep all this in mind. Who do you or don't you trust? Apple = iTunes for all content and is for the most part a closed shop. They will argue it is to avoid issues like that which have plagued Flash. Google = web ubiquity, although open source, they now have everything you do, type, watch and read running across and stored on their servers.

My Free Streaming Account Crashed! Now What?

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 01:11:00 +0000

Free streaming services are great for testing and using as a hobby service. I mean you can't beat the price. But what happens when free costs you viewers?

I have watched so many situations occur with "free streaming accounts", it seems as though the failure only occurs at the most important time. For example: Your sports team has used the free service all season long, it has been pretty good and for the most part the online fans have been able to watch the game. Then the team makes a run for the playoffs. The day of the big game you begin to stream to the free-service and something crashes. No fear just contact the free service provider for help.

You go to their website and click on support frantically looking for a phone number, the start of the game is 30 minutes away and you cannot get the video to stream to their free servers. You can find an "email us your question" page and an FAQ page but these are no help at least not under the pressure of a looming deadline. You need a phone number a live body, HELP!!

Somehow the service comes back online but it is buffering and the image is worse than you have ever seen. What is the problem and who can you contact for help?

As the saying goes "you get what you pay for". It is a free service after all. What do you expect, 24 x 7 technical support, live operators to identify a local Internet router failure? Is there any wonder why you have no call center to help you with the dreaded "blue screen"? Do you need to know why your camera no longer gets along with your laptop or you used to have audio but now you get nothing from my mixer? All you want at that moment is a solution, right?

Any one of these issues and sometimes several at once can and will occur at some time during a broadcast. This is why a service that charges a fee makes sense when you must deliver the big game. When your corporate image is at stake, why leave anything to chance? That isn't to say technical troubles are eliminated because you are now paying to stream. I hate to tell you this, but issues are still going to happen. Computers "kack", the public Internet goes down and once in a while someone plugs the microphone cable into the headphone jack. While your broadcast crew is freaking out it might be a really good idea to have a calm voice answer the 24 x 7 technical help line.

"Broadcast Operations, how can I be of assistance?" This is when the fee you have been paying is worth every penny. An expert who has been through all the live trouble situations and has the scars to prove it is now your lifeline. Typically within less than a minute the situation is diagnosed a solution is proposed and the fix gets put in place. Your game goes online, the audience is none the wiser and the broadcast crew focused back on the game.

Streaming video and Internet broadcasting is fast becoming a service that your audience expects. Now that they have a taste for it, they can't get enough. When you do it right you have the makings of your own broadcast media company, and why not? You have the asset, you have the opportunity to deliver it fans, maybe sell a bit of advertising or create a Pay per View. But if you server your fans a hit and miss free stream, you are saying to those fans, we don't value our asset enough to ensure first rate delivery.

It takes a long time to create trust and only a second to lose it. So be sure that you are confident with your provider. Know them on a first name basis and make sure they care as much about your broadcast as you do.

Online video Evolution - Confused? Do you care?

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 17:45:00 +0000

Are you confused by all the noise surrounding online video lately? Are you even aware of it and do you even care?

For most people browser standards and video enhancements are a result of buying a new computer which just seems to automagically resolve itself to the latest and greatest. Frankly, that is how it should be. Updating plugins and downloading special applications is hard enough for the geeks to stay on top of, let alone those that just want the $%#& computer to work.

HTML5 addresses this issue. Rather than being nagged to update to the latest version of "XYZ" software, HTML5 will take care of this at the geek level, (those who build pages and portals).

HTML5 can do some pretty amazing things and as a result the technical wizardry is light on the computer processor, meaning it takes less computing power. This means your smart phone will be even smarter and faster!

Now Video is another story: The brilliant people who set the standards for web speak (the protocols such as HTML5) could not agree on a video standard, so they have left this to the market to sort out. What we do know is that plugin for video is now a dirty word, this means all those applications you have diligently updated are becoming obsolete. Yet there are billions of dollars at stake, so let's follow the money trail and meet the players:

Adobe: The one's who brought you Flash and pretty much powered YouTube

Microsoft: Windows Media Player, no one really wanted it but Real Player made a fatal marketing error and lost a 90% market share to WM Player.

Apple: Quicktime, (mov) the Mac Heads have always argued that QT is where it was at but 85% of the PC population disagreed.

Others (codecs and players): Theora Ogg, DivX, VLC, mpeg. mp4, avi

So far the above is mostly technical baffle gab and meant as background nothing more. Here is the fun part; the war of the Titans.

Google: begins by indexing and making online video searchable and introducing Google video, it did not really catch on, so they bought YouTube and overnight became the largest video distribution network in history. At this point Google and Adobe are friends because YouTube runs on any browser or OS as long as you have Flash player.

Upsetting the Apple cart: iPod touch and iPhone signal a major change. These devices can access the web, play video as long as it is QT and in a bit of technical slight of hand one can watch YouTube video, which is supposed to be Flash based but it really isn't (too confusing to explain).

As iPod, iPhone and now iPad proliferate and literally change mobile device usage, there is a glaring omission. No Flash! No plans to incorporate Flash. Back to this in a moment:

Google: gets into the Operating System business (Windows, Mac, Linux etc) and announces Android OS. The market begins to take note as Google moves into the mobile phone space. HTC begins releasing The Google Phone, Nexus One and other versions with Android OS.

Another tentacle from the world of Google is the Chrome Browser, now a competitor to IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera and more. You can begin to see how the pieces are being put into place for Google to make one more major move.

Unbeknownst to many in the 'tech world" Google acquired a company called On2. This company makes a competitive video codec to QT, WMV, Mp4, H.264, On2 has a codec called VP8 The letters and numbers are not what is important, what is key however is the fact that Google now has all the parts to completely change YouTube as we know it, they can now compete directly with Microsoft at a browser and video level and with Android on mobile devices Google can go up against Apple.

Now let's get back to Mr. Steve Jobs and Apple's control of the media universe. Steve Jobs has made a public statement regarding Flash where he clearly states his opinion that Flash is dead.

...Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Steve Jobs
April, 2010

For those following along at home; Apple has just fired more than a warning shot shot across Adobe's bow. Google as of May 19th announces that the acquisition of On2 and the VP8 codec is now called WebM and is open source to the development community. This means royalty free usage of the video standard.

More confused? Hopefully this will bring it all into perspective.

Apple via Safari browser has fully embraced HTML5. Firefox is fully supporting HTML5, Microsoft announced IE9 will fully support HTML5, so have Opera browser and of course the leviathan Google is HTML5 ready with Chrome. So I think we can safely conclude that HTML5 is on it's way to a browser near you. What we have still not settled is what video standard will HTML5 settle on. Remember the brilliant people who determine the direction of where the web goes, did not agree upon a video standard. They left this to market forces. So you have all the players, you now have all the background, let's make the final arguments.

Apple and Microsoft support the video codec H.264 aka MPEG-4. They can do this because both companies have the financial resources to pay for the ROYALTIES associated to H.264 licensing.

Mozilla Firefox (a free browser) can ill afford to bundle H.264 and absorb the cost of license, neither can the Opera browser. So who might these guys hitch their wagon to? Why Google of course. Google has offered WebM as open source, no license fee, this works for the free browser guys.

Where is Adobe Flash or FLV in all of this? No where according to Apple, Microsoft by not endorsing FLV or Flash has effectively made their position known. Google will do the talking by changing YouTube over to WebM, so all those companies invested heavily in Flash are now on the defensive - big time! The other less obvious casualty is Microsoft's Silverlight. You may hear some rumblings about WMV and the Expression encoder but HTML5 has all but killed it. No matter how you want to argue the point the sands have shifted and the most powerful forces affecting the Internet have clearly defined the new rules.

So the last act now plays out:

H.264 Vs WebM

Apple has not made a public statement as to whether they will support WebM in Safari and on the i-Devices. But frankly it is just too big a fish to ignore. I is in all likelihood only a matter of time and Apple will embrace WebM as an alternative to H.264.

What will turn the tide will be the adoption of WebM by hardware manufacturers. This is where and why many of you will never even have noticed that the battle for online video was waged right in front of you. When you buy your next HDTV it will have software built in to enable Internet video to play seamlessly, no plugins to download or firmware versions to update or chips to hack, just beautiful and logical human to technology interface with friendly devices like your good old TV remote. You will plug in an Internet cable or a wireless stick and surf between Cable signals and Internet video. Welcome to the billion channel universe. For a while, some video will be H.264 and other video will be WebM. Both H.264 and WebM will run on HTML5 right to your TV, Desktop and Smartphone. Eventually the market will push a single format to the top as it did with Beta Vs VHS and HD-DVD Vs BluRay. What you will not see in a few years is the nag for a Flash Player update, or Silverlight version 11. These will go the way of Real Player and become a faded memory.

So for many if not most of you; Why care? The geeks will take care of things for you and online video will simply evolve.

Do you care? Perhaps not. However those who are invested or are investing in online delivery, should be aware that you now must choose very carefully. Beware of those with heavy financial interests in technology that Internet evolution is bypassing. Some of the biggest providers will need to rapidly evolve or face extinction. This means significant investment and wholesale changes in the way things are done. Some companies saw this coming and have gotten out ahead of the curve, this too is evolution, so there will be changes and shifts with the leaders and providers. Choosing the biggest from the past does not mean you have chosen the best. You may be better off to work with the brightest people and a company that has embraced change.

Now you know the truth and can make an informed decision. I hope that this has cleared up some confusion and pointed you in the right direction.

Dave McIlroy

If Phones Are So Smart Why Won't My Video Play?

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Mon, 10 May 2010 20:44:00 +0000

I thought there was "an app" for that?

For anyone around the Internet in 1995 you will see many similarities in the Mobile space. Each week we are hearing about new opportunities all targeting the Mobile data user. It is hard to keep up with the pace and then which phone should you buy?

Before you sign a contract so that you can subsidize the mini computer wrapped up in a phone, you may want to give some thought to video. Many clients have approached me and asked why an Internet Broadcast I was streaming live would not play on their iPhone. The answer has a few possible reasons but most likely the format of the live stream could not be recognized by the phone itself.

If you have a newer device like the iPhone, Droid and others, you will certainly be able to watch YouTube but YouTube is not live. If you are trying to view Flash you are most likely out of luck. Apple made it perfectly clear that i-stuff would not be running Flash. Droid and the Nexus One which uses the Google Android operating system are supposed to able to use Flash 10.1 but there are reports to suggest all is not going well with this deployment.

So what does one need to do?

Keeping in mind that we are talking about live video streaming to the phone over a data network (mobile 3G or WiFi) not a file downloaded to the memory. Most newer phones can play video within the phone browser, provided the source file is H.264
You will most likely need to get an app for the iphone or Android via their respective stores / markets. While this might work for big brand video such as CNBC news or CBC Hockey Night in Canada, it won't always work for the Little League game from the local ball diamond.

The solution for this is HTML5. A big footnote to this is that the phone browser must be able to read this new standard. Safari, Opera, Firefox, and even IE 9 will be able to understand HTML5, but these browsers are not always installed in your phone. So in response to this, Google has built the Chrome Browser which Android can understand. Chrome 5 or better supports HTML5, so it would seem likely that a video provider publishing H.264 to HTML5 would be the ideal solution.

Well before you run out and buy a Droid, Nexus One or HTC brand phone you may want to wait until after May 19th. Google IO is expected to be a watershed moment for online video. This is assumed due to an acquisition Google made recently where they purchased On2 and the VP8 codec. The announcement all are anticipating is that Google is releasing VP8 to the open source community. Meaning the codec VP8 would be royalty free unlike, H.264 which requires a licence from MPEG-LA.

What all this means to an average phone user: Remember VHS Vs Beta / Blu-Ray Vs HD-DVD? Well VP8 and H.264 is the same. To make things even more confusing, Flash and HTML5 developers are hedging bets on what emerges as the more popular publishing platform. One thing is for sure, open source leads development toward cool technology. A proprietary system like we knew Microsoft to be and what Flash and Apple have become, is great for shareholders but it stagnates development. This time around there is a might big fish in the pond and that is Google. As we start to integrate Gmail, Chrome, YouTube and other Google assets into our daily lives, we vote for open source but... And it is a really big BUT, do we trust Google to "do no evil"?

Likely by the time you have read this, something new will have appeared on the landscape. If that new thing has any chance of adoption it must be accessible to the largest possible user base. With Android phones outselling iPhone last quarter and RIM playing catch up, it looks like it might become a two horse race. If Google can get enough content providers and device manufacturers to back VP8 then we are in for an amazing finish in the mobile video stakes. The only downside at the present time is your ticket to bet (the phone you buy) which will cost you $600. If you have to money to spare take your pick. If you plan on buying a phone that will last you two or three years, then hang on a few months.

But come back to my blog and I'll give you as much insight as possible - Stay tuned.

Are you falling behind with your Internet Broadcast potential?

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:24:00 +0000

Your Internet Broadcast Strategy:

It is no longer a matter of when to get involved, it has become - "why are you not involved"?

No need to panic, the last train has not left the station. There are still many opportunities to exploit. But if you have been sitting on the fence wondering if Internet Broadcast makes sense for your organization, the time for contemplating is up. It is time to make a move. Your audience expects this and the longer you wait the more risk there is that someone will take those potential viewers away for good.

Right now 138 million people are clicking video online. As a matter of fact they are spending an average of 3 hours and 24 minutes each month doing so. What is most telling is that the audience you might expect is a much larger demographic group than you would think.

There is an audience for your content. As micro niche as it might be, the reach via Social Networks can bring a larger audience than you would ever have expected. This audience wants online video. If you create a live broadcast and then archive it for on demand viewing, you will be creating a destination for that micro niche audience. By bringing a highly defined and targeted audience to your content, you create the ideal environment for a product or service placement that relates to the content.

Think of the traditional magazine business. Advertisers are desperate to reach their target market and by creating a publication which addresses what might be a micro niche, the company which markets a product or service will gladly pay you to advertise themselves to the audience. This is much different than the old shotgun approach where a company spent thousands of dollars in a direct mail campaign or a quarter page ad in the local paper. That old approach was based on pure volume and the hope was someone in the demographic would trip across the advertiser's message.

Now online users are particular about their time and when researching topics of interest, a web site, blog, Facebook group etc. that has aggregated content into one location will bet a welcomed resource. Now add Internet Broadcast to the mix. You become the equivalent of the CableTV specialty channel. Your audience will tune in and provided that your content is fresh, relevant and comprehensive, you can expect return visits and a shout out to the social network community that relates to your area of expertise or interest. Next step is an introduction to a product or service that you believe in or that you think serves the audience that you have attracted.

Next posting: How to approach an advertiser.

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:14:00 +0000

Click the Slideshow buttons to advance the presentation, you can also view the presentation full screen.

Beam Me Up... Handheld Devices

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:34:00 +0000

Modern Digital Communicating has officially surpassed the foreshadowed Star Trek Communicator. Even "Kirk" could only talk to his crew, we now have video as well!

A powerful computer in the palm of your hand. GPS and Internet a click away. The SMARTPHONE is changing everything.

Under the Label "Mobile Age" I will use my HTC G1 (aka Dream) to update this blog with information relating to Internet Broadcasting and the tie in to the Smartphone.

Smartphones most commonly recognized are iPhone, Blackberry, Palm Pre, and Google phone. The Google phone uses the Google OS Android. This open source OS is gaining in popularity and in my opinion will rival the iPhone due to the non proprietary nature of the OS. The ability to write Aps. for Android will attract a great deal of activity but the ultimate kick start will be IP media.

Currently Smartphones have limitations when playing video media. Unless you have a Windows Mobile, one cannot view a Windows Media stream on a Smartphone. YouTube has created a "plugin" of sorts that enables video from the YouTube servers to play on all phones. Yet Flash is not enabled on the phones as the come out of the box.

Some advanced users can "Root" the phone, which basicaly means, they have found direct access to the OS, where configuration changes can be made, enabling some features and disabling others. This is fine for the phone geeks, but not something the mainstream will dabble.

So, how will mass media cross over into the Smartphone market? The answer is likely coming from Google. A video format known as OGG is being addressed at the browser level. This would mean that plugins and addons would not be required to play the OGG media file. Once this occurs, Android will be compatible with OGG and true convergence of Internet Broadcasting on Desktops and Mobiles will be accomplished.

Live streaming and VOD will be the result.

I would never have thought that individuals would be willing to watch feature length video on a micro screen but the consumer will always surprise and regardless of quality the entertainment value and convenience of hand held media has surely hit critical mass.

PlayFullScreen.com will develop for this emerging market. We will continue to build tools for publishers, (those creating the media) and viewing platforms for those watching the media. Our company focus is to simplify the human to technology interface. We solve problems and create convenience for the connected masses and in so doing, grow our business.

PlayFullScreen.com is not about writing software that sells for thousands of dollars. We are about writing software that is essentially free and the user would pay a micro transaction or convenience fee. If we solve a problem and make life easier for a few dollars, we believe the marketplace will respond.

This is mediaManager

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 06:08:00 +0000

MediaManager has become PlayFullScreen.
This blog has been edited from the previous post to reflect updated information.
Links were broken as a result of server changes.

Everything Including the Kitchen Sink

noreply@blogger.com (Dave McIlroy) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 06:19:00 +0000

The goal was to create the Dewey Decimal equivalent for Internet media. Bring viewers to a single web page where they could find a plethora of content on a specific subject. These content clips are categorized and searchable. Regardless of where they are hosted the video player controls and content navigation remain together in a tight and simplistic interface.

The project working name is mediaManager

We now challenge all users to create the world’s most comprehensive library of videos on their favorite subject. Link our application to your Blog or webpage.