Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Businesses The Internet

Azureus' HD Videos Attempt To Trump YouTube 117

Posted by Zonk
from the one-upsmanship dept.
tedgyz writes "Wired has an article describing a high definition video service from Azureus. It looks like many of the highlights of our previous discussion about service commercialization are panning out. The new Zudeo site, made by the masterminds behind the bittorrent service, aims to be a platform for movie-makers and professionals. Will distancing itself from the homespun efforts of YouTube prove successful, or lead to the service being ignored?" From the article: "With high-definition video cameras available for less than $1,000, and with the rapid adoption HDTVs in the home, it's clear that high-definition entertainment has a future. But the visual clarity of internet video tends to be less than stellar, mostly because the bandwidth costs associated with serving large, high-quality video files is prohibitively expensive. However, the BitTorrent protocol enables content distributors like Azureus to share large files using much less bandwidth."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Azureus' HD Videos Attempt To Trump YouTube

Comments Filter:
  • But the visual clarity of internet video tends to be less than stellar, mostly because the bandwidth costs associated with serving large, high-quality video files is prohibitively expensive. However, the BitTorrent protocol enables content distributors like Azureus to share large files using much less bandwidth.

    Such a beautiful idea, but with such a high chance of failure. :(

    The key issues I see are:

    1. Who's going to keep videos seeded? On Youtube, if the video is available, the video is viewable. Not so for Azureus! The video could be only partially intact (no seeders with not enough downloaders) or it could just be gone. The Bittorrent network has already lost several fan films due to this issue. Will Zudeo keep a seed of every video they've ever carried? Will they be able to afford the bandwidth when the viewers start trickling to videos rather than assisting each other with their downloads?

    2. Like it or not, Youtube is often used in workplace camaraderie. Many corporate firewalls whitelist business appropriate ports rather than blacklisting P2P clients. Youtube uses regular HTTP, so it works. Azureus uses the Bittorrent protocol which requires more esoteric ports.

    3. Will the bandwidth usage be acceptable for the average user? When you view a Youtube video, you use only the bandwidth necessary to download the video. This active form of downloading means that bandwidth usage stops as soon as the video is completely downloaded. With Bittorrent, users will both upload and download while waiting for the video to complete. They also are recommeneded to leave the client open while going about other tasks. Which can have a negative impact on their other Internet activities.

    4. Zudeo breaks up your workflow by launching an external program. This not only breaks up the user's workflow, but it also presents a more confusing interface. If the user wants to view the video, he has to open the torrent tab, click on "Files", then double click the correct file. This action is non-obvious to someone who simply wants to view the show. In addition, Azureus may not even launch when the Zudeo link is clicked! Magnet links are intended as a generic P2P descriptor, and are often claimed by programs other than Azureus.

    5. Perhaps the most important point of all: Bittorrent cannot stream files. The viewer must wait until the file is completely downloaded. With Youtube, they can simply watch their show with no intermediary steps.

    IMHO, the best bet for Zudeo is to reinvent themselves as an iTunes competitor. If they created a frontend program to Azureus that did all the dirty work, they could at least compete in an arena where they're more likely to succeed. Streaming will still be an issue, but consumers may be willing to wait for High Def content.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @01:08PM (#17114940)
      Azeures have their own "Seeding Servers" which are permanently online,
      guaranteeing that the file will always be available.
    • by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @01:09PM (#17114944) Homepage
      you missed an impoartant part that youtube has and this cant have.

      I can click play and decide in a few seconds if the video is garbage,gross,or not interesting and go on to the nest. With this Hd offering I haveto wait until I downloaded the whole damned thing before seeing it's crap or even broken. This has a huge problem inside Bitrottents already. you dont know if the video is even playable until you get a 100% download and try it. Unless they are offering as well as the HD content a LD clip showing you 30 seconds of it (or the whole thing if less than 30 seconds) that can be viewed instantly.

      Most people will bail on using a service if after 10 times they view a video and it's bad, or they are not interested in seeing it as it was mis-labelled.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by R2.0 (532027)
        IIRC, one can prioritize the first segment of a file in Azeurus for specifically that reason - viewing the first part of a movie file. It would seem like a trivial excercise to enable this by default along with a a little viewer for previewing.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by strider44 (650833)
          And, as it says in the article, the videos start a few seconds after it starts streaming.
      • Just read the ratings of a video before downloading. It is clearly available.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Lumpy (12016)
          Ratings can easily be astroturfed and some on youtube currently suffer from that.
          If a piece of content is old enough to have real ratings on it then that could be useful but it's still not as fast as clicking play, saying "ewwww!" and going on to the nest one as most internet users do.

          The other problem is their "streaming" still does not work. I tried it on 4 of their HD content clips and they do not stream, they download just like a normal torrent with pieces all random every clip would with not play or
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by lenroc (632180)
        you missed an impoartant part that youtube has and this cant have.

        No, he didn't. That was point #5, the one that was bold...

    • by XorNand (517466) * on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @01:10PM (#17114966)

      You make some excellent points, which illustrate why this service shouldn't really be compared to YouTube. It's a lot like comparing email to SMS. Both are very similiar on the surface, but both are also very successful because they serve slightly different purposes. As you pointed out, it's lack of streaming is the reason why it can't directly compete with YouTube. But because YouTube chooses to stream, they can't offer the same high-quality video as Zudeo. I think it's way to soon call this idea dead in the water. I mean, the iPod was just another MP3 player when it came to market. We'll have to see how well the idea is executed first.

    • by nametaken (610866)
      IMHO, the best bet for Zudeo is to reinvent themselves as an iTunes competitor. If they created a frontend program to Azureus that did all the dirty work, they could at least compete in an arena where they're more likely to succeed. Streaming will still be an issue, but consumers may be willing to wait for High Def content.

      Check out their beta app. I think they were aiming for the iTunes feel.
    • by dsginter (104154) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @01:16PM (#17115048)

      Such a beautiful idea, but with such a high chance of failure. :(


      Here's a suggestion as to the solution to their problems:

      Bars.

      That's right - as in "establishments that serve alcoholic beverages". All of 'em have these huge screen, high-def monitors all over the place to show sporting events. What do they use 'em for when there are no sporting events? Nothing, largely. Just filler (stick it on ESPN News or CNN and go).

      These places have *paying* customers that would rather watch stupid teenagers smashing cans of WD40 with a sledgehammer. You could even install a little controller at each table so that the viewership could vote on the videos (make it simple like "thumbs up", "thumbs down" and "replay" - enough people voting for replay would cause the video to run again).

      Install a kiosk for people to download the videos to mobile phones in exchange for the purchase of [INSERT FOOD OR BEVERAGE PRODUCT HERE]. A portion of the money goes back to feed the victims in said videos.

      The possibilities are endless.
    • by Aladrin (926209) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @01:16PM (#17115052)
      1) The company will. The other seeders are just to reduce load, if they exist.

      2) Yeah, major problem.

      3) Average user doesn't know jack about bandwidth and won't care.

      4) Yeah, this is bad.

      5) Not true. There are BT clients that prioritize the beginning of the file and tend to download it first. It could be used to stream, just not as nicely as normal streaming.
      • 1) The company will. The other seeders are just to reduce load, if they exist.

        That still doesn't address the issue of being nipped at by old videos. Let's say that they have 500 old videos that only get one user downloading every 12 hours. These users shut down their PCs at night, so their clients won't be able to assist the next downloader. For HD video, the result would be a rather massive drain on their bandwidth. I sincerely hope they're planning for such massive increases.

        3) Average user doesn't know j

        • by redcane (604255)
          I use this successfully. Depending on the file type. But azureus only prioritises the first chunk of the file, just enough to get a thumbnail generally. It doesn't at all attempt to download it in order. But with MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 I have watched a video before it's complete, it skips and breaks up where it hasn't downloaded yet, but it generally plays. Sometimes if I'd rather watch a show now, and I'm not worried about missing parts, I'll just play it like this. Now if zudeo was tuned to try as hard as pos
    • 1. Who's going to keep videos seeded? On Youtube, if the video is available, the video is viewable. Not so for Azureus! The video could be only partially intact (no seeders with not enough downloaders) or it could just be gone. The Bittorrent network has already lost several fan films due to this issue. Will Zudeo keep a seed of every video they've ever carried? Will they be able to afford the bandwidth when the viewers start trickling to videos rather than assisting each other with their downloads?

      Malware

      • OTOH, hardly anyone has the bandwidth to stream HD content anyways; that's what Internet2 is all about. If you want HD video, for now, you're going to have to wait, and I think the people that really want HD video will understand that.

        I don't think that's true anymore. 8Mb broadband is quite common in the UK now, don't know about other countries. On my ISP I can max out the connection if the far end has the bandwidth to supply. If the video is in a sensible codec (ie a variant of h264) then that is more than enough bandwidth for video. 60MB/min or 3.6GB per hour is a lot of h264 video...

        • by tepples (727027)

          hardly anyone has the bandwidth to stream HD content anyways

          I don't think that's true anymore. 8Mb broadband is quite common in the UK now, don't know about other countries.

          DVD itself is 10 megabits per second.

          If the video is in a sensible codec (ie a variant of h264) then that is more than enough bandwidth for video.

          HDTV at 1920x1080p24 has six times as many pixels per second as DVD at 720x480p24. Is H.264 six times as efficient as MPEG-2 at encoding those pixels? Or by "HD" are you talking about low-end HDTV at 1280x720p24, which has a more reasonable 2.67 times the pixels of DVD?

          • From what I've seen H.264 does appear to be *at least* six times as efficient as MPEG-2 at encoding. The comparison that I would make is various DVD rips of about 700MB that cannot be distinguished from the DVD where the MPEG-2 stream is 4-7GB. This includes some fairly tricky films (smoke, fog, subtle graduations of colour) like King Kong. I was quite dubious about the codec until I watched a few films that had been encoded really well in it. It is hard to explain just how much better than MPEG-2 it is.

            I'v
            • by raynet (51803)
              I recall reading that HDTV 1080i video as MPEG-2 would take max 20Mbps. So if we assume 6 times better compression via H.264 we get 3.3Mbps which is quite ok for 8Mbps internet connection. And 1080p should take double that, 6.6Mbps, so that is doable too. Though upload speeds for those connections are much slower, so that often limits the speed.
              • It is all a lot more variable than that, I'm just going to throw out a bunch of them:

                1) ATSC standards put HDTV's max bitrate at about 18.5Mbps. But, in practice, it is often closer to 13Mbps with null-padding or multi-plexed standard-def channels.

                2) h264's advantage over MPEG2 is reduced at higher resolutions. The best HD-h264 encoder versus the best HD-MPEG2 encoder will probably yield a maximum of 2x bitrate savings, often less, for equivalent visual quality.

                3) Because film runs at 24fps (24Hz), 60Hz 1
    • It's a BT tracker. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kadin2048 (468275)
      What they're doing really isn't all that cool. They're basically running a BT tracker, but rather than loading it up with all the content that people actually want -- and which also happens to be illegal to distribute -- they're going to only put stuff they have the rights to distribute on it. This tracker will have a fancy web interface, but really it's no different than ThePirateBay, from a technical aspect.

      So here's the "underpants gnomes" breakdown of their business plan, as I see it:

      1) Release buzzword
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by emil10001 (985596)

      While you do have some good points, I'd like to point out a couple of things from TFA:

      In a demonstration last week, the company showed a crisp, clear, DVD-quality clip that began streaming only seconds after the download was started.

      Isn't it possible that they've figured a way around the streaming issue by requiring the chunks downloaded to be sequential?

      Users can upload video either to the central server or they can share a video among a select group of friends by creating a private "trackerless" torr

      • One other thing that I'd like to ask is what about all the bandwidth throttling by the ISP's of torrents?
        Think of this in reverse, when the average Joe starts being a "bandwidth hog", the ISPs will have no choice but to increase their capasity to keep up. Us early adopters will no longer be scapegoats for using our connections to the full.
        • by emil10001 (985596)

          I don't think that the ISP's will ever want to give us what we're paying for. I could see them blocking all BitTorrent traffic, and re-writing the TOS contract before opening up the bandwidth. Capacity will be increased, there's no doubt about that, but I don't think it will be used to open up this sort of traffic.

          If the Average Joe sees this site and it's claims of fast and free HD vid's, and he's on Comcast, or the like, then he will be dissapointed. After perhaps the third video he'll say, 'that was nea

    • 1. Who's going to keep videos seeded? On Youtube, if the video is available, the video is viewable. Not so for Azureus! The video could be only partially intact (no seeders with not enough downloaders) or it could just be gone. The Bittorrent network has already lost several fan films due to this issue. Will Zudeo keep a seed of every video they've ever carried? Will they be able to afford the bandwidth when the viewers start trickling to videos rather than assisting each other with their downloads?

      I'm as

    • 6. Azureus (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mattgreen (701203)
      At least in my book. Nothing like needing 300 megabytes of memory to be used just to download files!

      (Yes, I realize you can probably use other clients. I'm just being offensive.)
    • by jazman (9111) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @01:54PM (#17115596)
      > Bittorrent cannot stream files. The viewer must wait until the file is completely downloaded.

      Well, to be hon...buffering.
      est, I usu...buffering.
      ally wait unt...buffering.
      il the fi...buffering.
      le has comp...buffering.
      letely downl...buffering.
      oaded before I st...buffering.
      art to watc...buffering.
      h it anywa...buffering.
      y, otherwise it j...buffering.
      ust gets frus...buffering.

      oh sod this, I'll go and do something else.
      • by British (51765)
        Were you trying to simulate a bittorrent-based multi-stream download, or a RealPlayer stream? :)
    • by Salvance (1014001) *
      They could make this work if for every video they also had a low quality clip that could be streamed. Then if it's good, someone could download the whole thing, store it in their movie selection, show it to their friends, etc.

      I really don't think there's that much of a demand for HD quality home movies. I'd be happy if everyone on YouTube just uploaded TV quality stuff, rather than the jittery cell phone video that appears to be the bulk of uploads. Sure, the demand is there for full length movies, bu
      • I'd be happy if everyone on YouTube just uploaded TV quality stuff, rather than the jittery cell phone video that appears to be the bulk of uploads.

        Except a camera phone is more affordable to a lot of YouTube users (that is, paid for by parents) than a USB 2.0 composite video input box.

    • by misleb (129952)

      5. Perhaps the most important point of all: Bittorrent cannot stream files. The viewer must wait until the file is completely downloaded. With Youtube, they can simply watch their show with no intermediary steps.

      I wonder if this is so much of an issue. I mean, people who use devices like TiVo very often don't watch things "live" anyway. They just let the TiVo record all the shows they want and then they go back and watch them at their leisure. So you let your Azureus client (assuming you have it set to au

    • 5. Perhaps the most important point of all: Bittorrent cannot stream files. The viewer must wait until the file is completely downloaded. With Youtube, they can simply watch their show with no intermediary steps.

      Since it's a custom client and they'll likely have at least a few I imagine they can combine direct download with bittorrent--streaming what's actively playing while bittorrent grabs what pieces it can to reduce the load. Once a viewer subscribes to a program, they can deliver video pod-cast st

    • Some good reasons why this service will have problems competing with YouTube, but your statement of FAILURE is dramatic and out of context. This is really just a commercial interface for torrents, and I don't have to tell you how SUCCESSFUL the bittorrent protocol is. A commercial outlet for torrents is great thing.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by 3choTh1s (972379)
      Most of these can be circumvented or irrelevant.

      1. Who's going to keep videos seeded? On Youtube, if the video is available, the video is viewable. Not so for Azureus! The video could be only partially intact (no seeders with not enough downloaders) or it could just be gone. The Bittorrent network has already lost several fan films due to this issue. Will Zudeo keep a seed of every video they've ever carried? Will they be able to afford the bandwidth when the viewers start trickling to videos rather than

    • by vindimy (941049)

      Bittorrent cannot stream files

      This is actually possible (although with some delay). Look at TVUPlayer [tvunetworks.com], a Chinese streaming video client that uses a peer-to-peer technology and built-in VLC player to deliver live streaming video channels to its users. The average delay between the actual TV channel and the streamed video is somewhere around 1 minute, and everyone can live with that...
      My point is, streaming video using peer-to-peer technology IS possible AND has been done already.

    • by owlnation (858981)
      Your points are mostly non issues as far as I can see.

      1. Who's going to keep videos seeded?

      This service is designed for professionals and serious indie filmmakers. Even a minimalist indie film has about 10 people who have a vested interest in the success of the movie. And their moms and friends and whatever... Prostudios have a webserver set up with the files stored there and a perpetual seed. No problem.

      2. Like it or not, Youtube is often used in workplace camaraderie.

      If you don't work in the mov

    • As someone that has been experimenting with a commercial venture based on bit torrent I can say that seeding isn't an issue because YOU seed the feeds. I have a server files are uploaded to that stores the files on another server which seeds to only other of my servers and essentially seeds the file all the time. My other seeding servers seed on demand by simply running a BT client that can take orders from the server so that when someone requests a download one of the seeds will grab a copy of the file and
    • by Idbar (1034346)
      When I first read your post, I thought you could be right. Luckily, I kept reading other responses.

      You're being pretty bad at those guys already, it's a brand new idea and nothing should be given for granted.

      There is no fair comparison between youtube and zudeo, but you can make it work if you find your target market... after all, who would think this [dvdrewinder.com] could be a product with any market at all?
    • by carl0ski (838038)

      2. Like it or not, Youtube is often used in workplace camaraderie. Many corporate firewalls whitelist business appropriate ports rather than blacklisting P2P clients. Youtube uses regular HTTP, so it works. Azureus uses the Bittorrent protocol which requires more esoteric ports.
      not on my network mate. Azureus will maintain the initial seed of a file obviously, however every time there is more than one leecher it will reduce the bandwidth required by Azureus official seed
    • 5. Perhaps the most important point of all: Bittorrent cannot stream files. The viewer must wait until the file is completely downloaded. With Youtube, they can simply watch their show with no intermediary steps.

      Well, as some above poster pointed out, that is not true as BT can prioritize what pieces to download first.

      There has been some discussion in my mailing-list about what would happen if all peers did this. I came conclusion that assuming we got a reasonably healthy swarm where most of the peers downl
    • by d0h (821759)
      hmm, i've just tried using the service and i noticed that for files that are yet to complete, there's a grey-ed out "Stream" button that has a tooltip saying "coming soon".
      the download speeds for the popular videos are pretty fast too.
      looks like it'll do well for a bit imo
  • by Overzeetop (214511) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @12:56PM (#17114750) Journal
    Wasn't that a hit way back in the...ohhhhh, Z udeo. Sorry.
  • P2P Streaming? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FrostyCoolSlug (766239) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @12:57PM (#17114772)
    It seems that Azureus intend on using P2P for the file 'Downloads'. One of the advantages that YouTube has currently is that you hit the 'Go' Button and the video streams straight from a persistent data source. As far as P2P goes, availability becomes an important issue, it's all well and good uploading a HD video, but you wont be able to stream it, and will have to wait for it to download and eat your bandwidth whilst you share to others.

    I can't see this taking off in the same way that YouTube did, some of us just don't have the bandwidth
    • Re:P2P Streaming? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Warin (200873) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @01:03PM (#17114870)
      Exactly. Most YouTube videos are what... a couple of megabytes? HD Video, even compressed, is going to be a lot larger. To the point where most people are going to hit bandwidth caps fairly quickly, if they are downloading even a few movies

      Positioning such a service as YouTube like is a little inane. Now, if they positioned it as a reasonable way to distribut indie films in High Def, they might find people a lot more receptive. I dont know what mastering a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD costs, but for some indie folk, it might just be too much... wheras this will let people get their films out in high quality at a reasonably low (well, free) cost.
    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      All false. P2P streaming *is* possible. Split the d/l into blocks. Download blocks in sequence. When you download block #n you seed the n-1 previous ones. It's not impossible, just hasn't been implemented yet.
  • by 1001011010110101 (305349) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @12:58PM (#17114794)
    There used to be another service that worked like that, called Veoh. Im not even sure it still exists, I stopped using it when they changed their term of services and forbid the posting of p0rn.
  • Doesn't this mean that the service will digress into an advertising platform for studios, etc.? If it's "professionals only", I believe this will cause it to collapse in the same way that mp3.com ate it when they sold out and quit hosting amateur music.
  • Am I the only one... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by balsy2001 (941953) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @01:10PM (#17114958)
    ...that doesn't care about HD video or HDTV. I am too cheap to pay for cable and my DVDs look just fine on my TV. I can tell a difference but for me it isn't worth paying anything to switch. As for posting HD videos of myself on the internet, please, no one wants to see me in low res let alone HD.
    • by Control-Z (321144)
      Have you been around HD video much? I'll watch 10 or 15 minutes of Sunday Night Football just to see the better-than-DVD quality.

      • by balsy2001 (941953)
        Yeah, I just don't care. I figured I would get modded down for the post because of the crowd.
    • by Raqem (964006)
      I don't even own a TV^H^H^H^H an HDTV!
  • Azureus.sf.net says to only get your Azureus from SF to avoid spyware. Where is this "3.0" on SF?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by shudde (915065)

      The download link on Zudeo is http://torrents.aelitis.com:88/files/Azureus_2.5. 0 .0_linux.tar.bz2 [aelitis.com].

      I have no idea why they're pushing the site as Azureus 3.0 but that's a legitimate download link, the same one offered on the SourceForge site. Interestingly while Zudeo is handling the press, the sf page has taken a dive.

      nyud.net:8080 shows they've got a prominent ad for Zudeo on the mainpage though.

  • "Paying" twice...? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Half-pint HAL (718102) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @01:23PM (#17115152)

    I'm not interested. Why? Because on P2P, as other posters have said, I'm the the webserver. But who does the advertising money go to? Not me.

    I get a slower weblink, and a slightly higher electricity bill. My broadband ISP charges me for excessive uploading and demands that I sign up to a commercial package -- and I can't argue, as I'm supplying a commercial service. And I still have to sit through five minutes of ads for every 10 minutes of program.

    No thanks.

    HAL.

    • "My broadband ISP charges me for excessive uploading and demands that I sign up to a commercial package"

      If your ISP charges you for excessive uploading you may need to switch ISPs. Unless you're using commercial grade broadband instead of home.
      • If your ISP charges you for excessive uploading you may need to switch ISPs.

        And spend $440 on finishing out the 12-month minimum commitment? Besides, what would you do if both the cable company and the phone company TOSsed you?

    • by Lord Ender (156273) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @02:37PM (#17116154) Homepage
      You are paying more for a better product.

      Face it: youtube is right on the verge of being unwatchably-low quality. This would be HD.
    • by internic (453511)

      My broadband ISP charges me for excessive uploading and demands that I sign up to a commercial package -- and I can't argue, as I'm supplying a commercial service.

      One solution to this part of the equation is to get an ISP without such assanine rules (like the one I use [speakeasy.net], for instance). Of course, that's a solution for you, not for the service, because they're unlikely to have a successful internet business model that begins, "First, get all your customers to switch their ISP..."

    • Increased electricity costs? Excessive uploading charges? If you can find data to support #1 I'd be surprised and as for #2 this would only happen in a corporate setting. Set your seeding limits 1:1 and throttle your upload speed, problem fixed, if it ever existed.

      As for ads? That's utter bullshit, you clearly haven't even tried the service! There are no ads in the videos!

      Next time try using the service before you make shit up.
      • As for ads? That's utter bullshit, you clearly haven't even tried the service! There are no ads in the videos!

        I don't need to try the service -- I read TFA:

        The company plans to give users the ability to attach pre-roll or post-roll advertisements to uploaded videos. Videos are currently shared with no advertising, but an opt in, ad-sharing program is under development.

        There are no ads in the videos yet. What you have is the system in it's early stages, using free content. What's the future?

        Azureus has

    • by LoudMusic (199347)
      I'm not interested. Why? Because on P2P, as other posters have said, I'm the the webserver. But who does the advertising money go to? Not me.

      No, but you're also getting high definition entertainment that you didn't have to pay for.

      I guess we've moved on from wanting everything for free to wanting to get paid for something you're not physically doing. Yay America!

      The advertising money doesn't go to the bandwidth - it goes to the service of organizing the community and building awareness of the service. The p
    • Another uninformed, bullshit comment gets +5.

      After years of posting here, I think I've had it.
      If FOX had a geek news site, Slashdot would be an excellent model.

      See ya!

  • In HD (Score:4, Funny)

    by Beek Dog (610072) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @01:24PM (#17115162)
    YouTube: Watch boy smash face into ground

    Azureus: Watch boy smash face into ground in excruciating detail

    HD, ho hum... I'll pass until Smell-o-vision comes around.
  • by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @01:34PM (#17115328) Homepage Journal
    As noted above, flash sends you the first bits of the video, ready to play within seconds if not immediately. Bittorrent files don't work that way, you get whatever bits are sent to you, and not in any particular order either. That also means having to have files on the drive, when I leave YouTube and close the browser, the files are generally gone.

    Not only that, just about any digital camera is able to capture video that's better than what YouTube offers, the problem is that YouTube is using a fairly old codec. They can get better video with less bandwidth by switching to OnTo's latest codec.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Inda (580031)
      I don't think that's strictly true.

      I don't use BitTorrent much these days but when I did, I always got my client to request small files like NFOs, SFVs, JPEGs and AVI samples first.

      There's nothing to stop the client asking for the blocks in order.

      • There's nothing to stop the client asking for the blocks in order.

        Other than that the last blocks become dangerously underseeded, causing the video to stop playing?

  • by Temsi (452609) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @01:34PM (#17115332) Journal
    Where are these guys shopping?
    • Canon HV10 $999 (Score:3, Informative)

      by westlake (615356)
      HD Cameras for less than $1000??? Where are these guys shopping?

      The Cannon HV10 is available for $999 from Tiger Direct [tigerdirect.com] and other outlets. Described as the world's smallest HD camcorder. 1920x1080 CMOS sensor. 10x optical zoom, image stabilization, etc.

      The Sanyo HD1A records 720p MPEG-4 video on SD cards. Sells for around $600-$700. Froogle is your friend.

      • by Temsi (452609)
        The HV10 has a MSRP of $1350. If they're selling for $999 (plus s/h and tax), that means they're skimping on accessories and/or warranties.

        The HD1A just barely even qualifies as consumer HD, seeing as it records to MPEG4. That one would be considered "one for the kids".

        But your point is well taken.
  • by stile99 (1004110) on Tuesday December 05, 2006 @01:51PM (#17115562)
    I tried reading the article, but it looks like a lot of us are stuck at 98.3%, will someone please seed?
  • However, the BitTorrent protocol enables content distributors like Azureus to share large files using much less bandwidth.

    Content distributors? Since when is Azureus a content distributor? Is that some sort of entity? I thought Azureus was just a software program implementing a specific internet protocol.

    I would think the "content distributors" would be the websites hosting the trackers, etc.

    Oh well, maybe it's just a semantic misunderstanding on my part.

    • by tepples (727027)

      Content distributors? Since when is Azureus a content distributor? Is that some sort of entity? I thought Azureus was just a software program implementing a specific internet protocol.

      I would think the "content distributors" would be the websites hosting the trackers, etc.

      The point of the article is that the developer of Azureus software now maintains a "website[] hosting the trackers". Clearer?

  • I think I'm willing to put up with the downside of this service to get watchable content on my TV.

    I've tried the YouTube Xbox Media Center plugin which kinda works, but the videos are almost unwatchable on a TV.

    A Zudeo XBMC plugin would be cool...

    BTW, has anyone else noticed that searching for "zudeo" on google results in like ZERO applicable links? Weird...

  • While it's true that BT doesn't send you the bits sequentially, I don't see any reason why the protocol couldn't prioritize on a chunk level instead of a file level. Most clients already let you specify which files in a set to download, and with what priority. While this wouldn't always make streaming possible, in the cases where there are enough seeds to sustain the necessary aggregate transfer rate, you could start watching before the file has finished downloading. There's probably a reason why this go
  • AMD 64-bit 3GHz...
    Warren Miller M720P. 2min/135MB, mplayer

    Result:

                          **** Your system is too SLOW to play this! ****
  • One thing about BitTorrent is it's one of the most hyped concepts that doesn't look like it's working except to the most educated user. Unless you're an expert in networking and file sharing, you're going to see a scrambled file downloading at 0.2kb/sec and give up.

    The most educated people aren't the ones who are into HD. They live in Europe and prefer low definition in higher quantity. The least educated people are the ones who are into HD. They are in Uneducated Shipwreck and prefer high definition in
  • What about Democracy Player [getdemocracy.com] and their Broadcast Machine [getdemocracy.com]? We've been able to do this ourselves for some time now.
  • Well, there's another web site for High Definition Movie Trailers at http://www.reelnow.com./ [www.reelnow.com] That's where I watch my trailers:) Could provide more services but it's getting there.
  • Well, there's another web site for High Definition Movie Trailers at http://www.reelnow.com/ [reelnow.com] [www.reelnow.com] That's where I watch my trailers:) Could provide more services but it's getting there.
  • While "normal users" won't normally understand/notice bandwidth usage, i'm pretty sure they would notice a lack of "hard drive space". This won't fly, IMHO.
  • >> However, the BitTorrent protocol enables content distributors like Azureus to share large files using much less bandwidth."

    Sure if you don't want to watch it today.
  • Not sure why everyone thinks this is a guaranteed failure. All it needs to get going is money. All it needs to stay going is a userbase whose content needs to be viewed in higher quality than youtube can provide, and maybe even HD.

    Has no one here ever stopped a youtube video after a few seconds NOT because they deemed the content uninteresting, but because the quality was just too piss poor?

    As far as bandwidth is concerned, one poster already mentioned that downloaders need not diligently maintain a
  • Every major consumer ISP in the world now has some form of traffic shaping in place to degrade bittorrent traffic. When BT was first launched, speeds of 200kB/s weren't uncommon; today, most torrents putter along at about 30-50kB/s. Despite my connection being able to easily sustain 55kB/s uploads, I never upload faster than 20 over BT.

    While torrents have made file sharing far more widespread, accessible to basically anyone with a client and a few braincells, ISPs have succeeded in making sure that the tran
  • This idea has been had before. There is already a free service that provides a simple and usually fast way to share and watch video torrents. Check out http://participatoryculture.org/ [participatoryculture.org] for a player and a broadcaster of your very own.

Everyone can be taught to sculpt: Michelangelo would have had to be taught how not to. So it is with the great programmers.

Working...