I can understand Goog's reasoning. It is a costly operation and I think we take it for granted. Placing ads in videos has helped ease the burden. Youtube is a business and shouldn't have to tip toe around the issue of other companies making money by playing videos on their devices. It would make sense from Google's point of view to work with these manufactures for some method of placing the ads in their devices. Obviously there is the issue of not being able to click through, but I'm sure Google can come up with a solution.
I would hate not having the youtubes. Where else can I see fat kids get kicked in the nuts. Might as well let Google follow it's business model of supplying free, ad supported, internet based services. What ever keeps stupid people hurting themselves on video.
@thechansen: Google knew that it was a costly operation before they bought it. YouTube was about to shut down if it weren't for Google because of how much it cost to run the site. What did they think was going to change afterwards?
So, is it safe to assume that the AppleTV (wassat??) and the iPod touch will still be able to freely access Youtube? I can't imagine they'd be shut out, but given their recent friction, I can't rule it out.
@Kaiser-Machead: i don't get why you would think they'd be any different. i doubt it will leave ipod touch cause that's an app developed under google, appletv however should be eff'd.
@Azures: Apple has a great deal more pull than a lot of those other hardware vendors out there, namely the likes of the purveyors of Popcorn Hour. Apple made a big deal about its addition to the ATV, and I doubt very much that they'd let it simply disappear. Not to say that there's no possible way that Google would take it away, but I don't believe it would be as easy to do it to Apple.
I can see it now. A dedicate site with the weirdest automatic captions, tons of foreign language videos hijacked for comic effect, tons of video with cussing...
@Bertone77: The scariest part is, this actually is classic. One of the first internet memes, and still one of the best. The likes of which "I'mma let you finish" and "Yo dawg" could never touch.
If there were ever an internet museum, this would need a prominent display.
How about instead of all this extraneous bullshit Youtube implements the one feature I've been craving since day one: AN OPTION TO DISABLE FUCKING AUTO-PLAY.
It's so obvious that it's ridiculous that it's taken this long.
... and yes, I already have the Firefox plugins. But I'd prefer a built-in solution. #gizmodoremainders
The USB FM radio could be useful sometimes when you want to listen to a channel the doesn't or won't broadcast.
For example.. A local station where I live cuts off it's online broadcast when it runs live KU football & basketball games (which is the only time I would want to listen). They cut the online broadcast because KU wants anyone listening online to be paying for the broadcast through another service they have.
Also you could use it for easy rebroadcasting of a station online... Take what you pick up over the air and broadcast it online. There might be some legal problems there. But it would be a super low budget and easy way for a small station to get their broadcast online. #gizmodoremainders
Look, not that I'm not all in favor of more internet-based media, but isn't this kind of the opposite of the point of YouTube? I mean YouTube was supposed to be a platform for the everyman broadcast. A place where you could garner a public audience no matter how awful your video/vlog is.
I suppose the combination of a solid video streaming platform and a solid brand is appealing to some folks. It just doesn't fit, IMHO.
@Strawman: I was thinking that, too. CDs hold .wav, usually, so if you think of each song as being at least 60 MB, you get a better picture. That's about 2000 songs, or somewhere around 200 CDs. HUGE difference.
Although, granted, still a lot more than 1 CD and I could still put my whole collection on 1 iPod (if I had that big one).
@thebigcheese: There's a similar misrepresentation with the 12" records. The number would be far smaller than that since records have zero compression and represent far more data in the subharmonic ranges that's usually clipped when changed to digital. I'd have to ask the audio tech guys at work for a guess at how much data would be for one record.
My phone's memory card has a higher storage capacity than my first desktop computer (3gb HDD back in 1996) and few years from now, we'll all be laughing at 1TB...so what's their point with this comparison?
@Complexified: And the 512MB memory card in my point-and-shoot holds two and a half times as much as the HDD in my first desktop. It's pointless, but it's damn cool to think about.
@kylewilson: I think they meant in length of music not actual data so... if you take (83.3Days * 24 hours * 60 minutes) / 80 minute CD you get 1,499.4 compact discs. So yes someone does fail at math... or it's just misleading.
@kylewilson: Working it from the available time of storage, the math works but I'm not sure how he came up with the base of 1500 CD's.
1500 CDs * 80 mins = 120,000 mins
120,000 mins / 60 = 2,000 hours
2,000 hours/24 = 83.3 days
@dannydutton: There's no reason you can't store audio in the same format on a cd as you would on a hard drive (or some cloud storage or whatever this is advertising). If they're talking about 128kbps(ish) mp3/aac (which they probably are), then the quality isn't close to comparable with uncompressed CD audio. You should compare apples to apples, not apples to monkey crap. (12" vinyl also stores audio at much higher fidelity than 128kbps mp3/aac, so that comparison is also unfair)
@kylewilson: You're forgetting that nearly all listeners don't know or care about the difference between the 128kbps AAC they got off iTunes two years ago and the CD they bought three years before that. Not everyone is searching what.cd for a V0 copy of Jagged Little Pill.
You can go on about the quality difference, and as an audiophile I would agree. But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of users frankly don't give a toss. So let's try this again.
120GB * 1024MB/GB = 122880 MB.
Given that, at 128kbps, 1MB is about 1 minute of music, which it is,
122880min/(80min/CD) = 1536 CDs.
Since an iPod has a hard drive, and given the discrepancy between advertised and actual hard disk space (1 GB = 1 billion bytes as opposed to 1024^3 bytes), a more accurate calculation would be this:
120*1000*1000*1000/1024/1024 = 114441 MB.
Given that 1MB=1min,
114441min/(80min/CD) = 1431 CDs.
03:35 PM
04:44 PM
04:53 PM
#tips
03:21 PM
I would hate not having the youtubes. Where else can I see fat kids get kicked in the nuts. Might as well let Google follow it's business model of supplying free, ad supported, internet based services. What ever keeps stupid people hurting themselves on video.
03:51 PM
04:14 PM
05:29 PM
#tips
03:18 PM
Instead of shutting down the boxes completely, how about re-working the API so it can serve the in-line ads along with the content?
04:01 PM
WE'RE TAKING OVER!
03:13 PM
03:13 PM
03:19 PM
03:26 PM
03:47 PM
11:51 AM
11:22 AM
11:27 AM
If there were ever an internet museum, this would need a prominent display.
.....The internet is friggin' weird.
11:31 AM
11/13/09
It's so obvious that it's ridiculous that it's taken this long.
... and yes, I already have the Firefox plugins. But I'd prefer a built-in solution. #gizmodoremainders
11/12/09
For example.. A local station where I live cuts off it's online broadcast when it runs live KU football & basketball games (which is the only time I would want to listen). They cut the online broadcast because KU wants anyone listening online to be paying for the broadcast through another service they have.
Also you could use it for easy rebroadcasting of a station online... Take what you pick up over the air and broadcast it online. There might be some legal problems there. But it would be a super low budget and easy way for a small station to get their broadcast online. #gizmodoremainders
09/03/09
I suppose the combination of a solid video streaming platform and a solid brand is appealing to some folks. It just doesn't fit, IMHO.
09/02/09
08/28/09
People, MP3s are not the same as CDs. You're losing when you don't compress
lossless.
08/28/09
Although, granted, still a lot more than 1 CD and I could still put my whole collection on 1 iPod (if I had that big one).
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
so in other words man shouldnt concern himself with progression?
08/28/09
OH in the name of Gautama, here we go again...
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
Broderbund's Ancient Art of War FTW.
08/28/09
08/28/09
And how many hulus in a fortnight
08/28/09
And how many twitters in a handbasket?
08/28/09
08/28/09
83.3 days * 24 hours *60 minutes = 119952 minutes on an ipod
119952/ 80mins on a cd = 1499.4 cds
08/28/09
08/28/09
1500 CDs * 80 mins = 120,000 mins
120,000 mins / 60 = 2,000 hours
2,000 hours/24 = 83.3 days
08/28/09
08/28/09
You can go on about the quality difference, and as an audiophile I would agree. But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of users frankly don't give a toss. So let's try this again.
120GB * 1024MB/GB = 122880 MB.
Given that, at 128kbps, 1MB is about 1 minute of music, which it is,
122880min/(80min/CD) = 1536 CDs.
Since an iPod has a hard drive, and given the discrepancy between advertised and actual hard disk space (1 GB = 1 billion bytes as opposed to 1024^3 bytes), a more accurate calculation would be this:
120*1000*1000*1000/1024/1024 = 114441 MB.
Given that 1MB=1min,
114441min/(80min/CD) = 1431 CDs.
So yes, I'd consider 1500 a fair estimate.