Categories
Internet

Streaming video from Amazon and Roku: a perfect match?

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Amazon is releasing an upgrade on its video delivery system today. Unlike its previous offering, you’re not limited to a Windows only box in order to stream video to your computer. You also don’t have to completely download the video in order to start watching (similar to what’s offered in iTunes and AppleTV, as well as Netflix WatchNow).

An interesting twist on Amazon’s offering, which is going to make it attractive over Apple’s offering is it’s cloud-based support for videos. If you purchase a movie, you don’t have to keep a copy on your computer or backup storage. Instead, the video will be available at Amazon, ready to stream at the click of a link.

Amazon isn’t looking just to win within the computer desktop market, it’s also looking to connect this service to hardware devices, including Sony’s high-end Bravia line. Currently, you have to purchase an optional tower in order to access the video (and at $300.00, the offering isn’t cheap). Eventually, though, the web video service will be built into the television.

Another possible hardware partner for Amazon’s new streaming service is Roku’s new Netflix device, the small, video streaming device that currently streams Netflix’s WatchNow offerings. Roku recently announced that it is looking for additional content providers—with Netflix’s blessing, as Netflix is looking to place its service in other devices.

What Roku’s box needs from a service is streaming video, as well as cloud-based storage as the device has no storage of its own. The talk in the Roku forums is that the device will be streaming YouTube videos, but these videos typically don’t look every good on a larger monitor, like a TV; especially an HD TV.

Another strong Roku possibility is Hulu, the online video streaming service by NBC and a consortium of other companies. CBS now has new HD quality video streaming services that would also be excellent source for the Roku box.

However, what Amazon’s new service would provide would be a way to stream new movies. The Roku device is also capable of streaming HD quality video, which would provide an outlet for HD quality material from Amazon. The Roku box is also cheap, which can’t help but make it attractive to Amazon. In fact, the Roku’s price could be the key that enables mainstream switching to online video.

If Amazon does stream its offerings through Roku’s video box, the device could become the Amazon equivalent version of AppleTV, only cheaper, smaller, and with access to 10,000 free movies and TV shows in addition to pay-to-play newer offerings.

(Also see NewTeeVee, which wonders at a Amazon/Roku mashup)


Update I updated the text to reflect that iTunes does have the video watching capability as AppleTV. In addition, I adjusted the comments so that you can now leave your contact information.

Categories
Internet Web

The next good thing

A VC wrote:

My view, for those who haven’t been reading this blog for a long time, is that all of this privacy stuff is way over the top. You need to disclose what you are doing and Facebook has done that. You need to give users a way to opt out and I believe but am not sure that Facebook has done that. Certainly the partner sites that are runnning Facebook’s beacon need to disclose and provide an opt out

But beyond that, tracking what we do and reporting it to our friends and using that data to target advertising and content is a good thing. In fact, its why the Internet is getting better and better every day.

This is why the internet is getting worse, not better–Tim Berners-Lee buying into the hype, notwithstanding.

One of the earlier stated advantages of the internet and the web is that we would have access to new ideas and concepts beyond that which were typical and usual and familiar. We had become a global world of insular neighborhoods, suffering not one but two world wars, as we stumbled from one fear of the unknown to the next. A despot works best with those least informed, so the concept was simple: inform. With the internet, first, and then the web, the walls around our communities would first crack, and then crumble.

Now, not only have we taken that insularity with us into the threaded void, we’ve monetized it.

I don’t know why I write on this, I’m not part of the discussion. I’m not part of the discussion because I don’t show in Techmeme. I don’t show on Techmeme because I don’t fit the white listing criteria. Because I don’t fit the white listing criteria, and don’t show on Techmeme, no one needs feel constrained to respond. Because no one responds, I am the tree, falling the forest. Eventually, I stop responding, and homogeneity is safely preserved. This is, the good thing to which we are heading.

Techmeme is based on the exact same principles of Facebook’s Beacon–celebrating, nay, demanding sameness, while filtering differences. What Facebook has done, though, is infinitely worse: not only can it ensure that insularity is preserved within the gated communities in its utopia, but it has also assured it’s marketing partners a ready supply of people perfectly mapped, neatly categorized, sans any pesky contrariness, because those of us aghast at what we’re seeing have bailed. No tears are shed at Facebook, though, because we’ve deactivated our accounts. Why? Because we generate noise, and no income.

Aristotle wrote in my comments:

The strategy is obvious and simple, no?

First they spring something “can they really mean this?!” outrageous on the userbase, then they let the protests ring for a while, until finally they “recant.” Of course recanting means falling back to a position that would have outraged users nearly as much as the initial proposition – but under the circumstances, seems like a compromise that users feel they can grudgingly accept.

Then they wait until the frogs have gotten thoroughly used to the warmer water before springing the next aspect of enforced exhibitionism on them.

Hey, it worked for politicians in grinding down civil liberties and those pesky checks and balances.

The strategy is obvious and simple, yes.

Categories
Internet

Amazon S3 pricing

Amazon just sent a letter detailing price changes for the S3 service. They’re as follows:

Current bandwidth price (through May 31, 2007)
$0.20 / GB – uploaded
$0.20 / GB – downloaded

New bandwidth price (effective June 1, 2007)
$0.10 per GB – all data uploaded

$0.18 per GB – first 10 TB / month data downloaded
$0.16 per GB – next 40 TB / month data downloaded
$0.13 per GB – data downloaded / month over 50 TB
Data transferred between Amazon S3 and Amazon EC2 will remain free of charge

New request-based price (effective June 1, 2007)
$0.01 per 1,000 PUT or LIST requests
$0.01 per 10,000 GET and all other requests*
* No charge for delete requests

Storage will continue to be charged at $0.15 / GB-month used.

The reason for the change is also given in the email:

There are two primary costs associated with uploading and downloading files: the cost of the bandwidth itself, and the fixed cost of processing a request. Consistent with our cost-following pricing philosophy, we determined that the best solution for our customers, overall, is to equitably charge for the resources being used – and therefore disaggregate request costs from bandwidth costs.

As regards to who is going to be impacted the most, sites which host against S3 that have a lot of RESTful activity are going to be seeing new charges, and it will be interesting to see what happens in this regard. This change also encourages such sites to look at using EC2 for their processing, as well as S3 for their storage.

I don’t have detailed information about how many PUT and LIST requests I chalk up a month, but this will most likely impact positively on me–I should be paying less, because most of my bandwidth costs are associated with serving up the images, an activity which doesn’t use a PUT or a LIST. Hard to say, though.

This is the risk you take when you use a centralized service: changes in terms of service. This is the main reason I avoid it–that and issues of reliability. Chances are, it’s still cheaper to host at S3 rather than locally, but we’ll see. Again, though, I’m small peanuts to the service.

Categories
Internet

Distance learning

Eric Langhorst is a history teacher in Liberty, Missouri. He’s been specializing in ways of using the internet in order to aid in the teaching of history, and has posted conference notes about his research for the MidWest Education Technology conference here in St. Louis.

It’s a nice presentation, but it does demonstrate the growing importance of global broadband coverage. Our community is looking at wide-area wireless for the county, and all the public library system now provides free wireless, as does the downtown St. Louis area.

Lee at Black River News mentions the new Missouri Virtual School program, which lets kids take classes over the internet. This would be particularly valuable for rural areas, especially within school systems struggling with funding. It’s unfortunate that there’s no plan for providing the internet coverage into those areas more likely to benefit from such.

Categories
Internet Social Media

Green, Green, the Grass is Green

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Two stories on search engine companies in the last few weeks, and I have little to write specifically on either. I tend to agree with the ACLU that the issue with the federal subpoena of Google, MSN, and Yahoo doesn’t show just cause, and I want to write on privacy later, in a separate post.

As for Google and China, I have to ask myself if I’m willing to give up on my use of Google–to not use the search engine, to stop using Google maps, to prevent Google from accessing my site, and so on. I also ask myself if I’m willing to give up my iPod, which is manufactured in China; in fact, give up both of my Powerbooks, as well as many other computer-related items in addition to my Belkin surge protectors, and most likely all or part of most of my photographic equipment.

In the end, I’m not willing to go this far for my beliefs, so it’s difficult for me to jump into the sense of outrage others are experiencing. I am, instead, alarmed at how much I am surrounded by “Made in China”; more resigned and saddened at my own culpability in bolstering the power that the Chinese government has over its people–and whether we acknowledge it or not, ourselves–than angry at Google.

Three days ago Google was evil. But then, as always happens, Google issues another beta or releases another new toy, and the pundits stop in mid-indignant outburst with murmurs of ‘Oooo, shiny. New toy.’ Well, well, we say. Perhaps Google isn’t quite so evil after all.