<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[IP] Here Come the Giants





Begin forwarded message:

From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 13, 2005 12:20:08 PM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Here Come the Giants
Reply-To: dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


[Note: Blog entry from 'Participatory Culture', the developers of DTV, the Internet TV application. Worth reading! DLH]
Here Come the Giants

<http://participatoryculture.org/blog/2005/10/here-come-the-giants/>

There was lots of thunder this week as giant corporations make moves to capture the online video ‘market’. Apple, which dominates digital music, just introduced an iPod that plays video and an iTunes video store. They don’t have a ton of content right now, but they have some exclusive TV shows, beautiful electronics, and enormous momentum.

Earlier in the week, Microsoft and Real announced that they will work together to promote a music store that will likely grow to include a video store. Microsoft will, of course, aggressively push this on Windows users. And don’t doubt Microsoft’s ability to push mediocre services– Alexa ranks 3 Microsoft web sites in the 10 ten most popular english language sites: MSN at #2, passport.net at #4, and microsoft.com at #6. Those sites don’t really attract visitors as much as they get visitors delivered to them by the Windows monopoly. The same could easily happen for video, despite Apple’s big headstart.

Yahoo and Google are also in the battle and so are electronic companies like Sony, movie studios like Sony, and video rental companies like Blockbuster and Netflix. Online video looks like a multi-industry convergence point / competitive explosion. Everyone knows video will be a big pie. Probably the big pie.

But let’s step back for a second. Imagine if 25 years ago the US government licensed some key internet technologies to companies and what we call the ‘internet’ developed into a private, expensive research and telecommunications network. It’s not a far-fetched a scenario, it could have made a lot of sense at the time. A few years later AOL would have come along and built their exciting, high tech, ‘online’ service with simplicity and good features at a price that individuals could afford (this is exactly what AOL did, actually). Without the internet to compete, AOL would have grown and grown until Microsoft eventually builds a competing, service called ‘MSN’ that, like AOL, would give users a nice batch of tools and services to dial in to. Both AOL and MSN would have had chat rooms and celebrity photos and auctions and then music and video too. And they would, of course, be distinct and incompatible, vying for marketshare and making exclusive deals with different news services and entertainment companies– perfect competitors. Everything would have seemed fine. Better than fine, in fact; both services would have represented an amazing new use of technology, connecting people instantly in ways previously imagined by science fiction. Who could complain?

But instead of closed online services we got the internet. Thank God. AOL’s private enclave, where companies had to pay giant amounts of money just to get a ‘keyword’, eventually succumbed to the torrential force of wild, wonderful internet openness. What’s scary is how easily we could have been happily trapped in a world of crappy online services– the scenario above sounds great if you’ve never seen the internet. But now that we’ve all lived with the internet for a few years, it’s obvious to everyone what a disaster it would have been if ‘online’ meant connecting to a closed corporate service.

[snip]
Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/