The Great Internet Video Lie

Interesting blog post here: (from a tweet @capsulefilms)

From the mark cuban weblog:-

Internet Video. Its the salvation for content creators everywhere. Its the end to dependence on the big bad meanies, the cable and satellite companies. Right ? Hell no. The concept that “over the top” video creates a valid business alternative for content creators is as misguided an internet business myth as there is.

For grins, lets say you want to start a business for which you want to stream, live or on demand, any video. Any quality. You want the ability to reach merely 10k simultaneous viewers. Not a big number. In fact , its a tiny number. Its certainly not competitive with any form of traditional TV, but its a starting point. So to stream 10k simultaneous streams, what are your choices ?

Can you just do it from a PC in your dorm room ? From your house on your cable or DSL line ? No. You will need an outside vendor in order to offer a mere 10k simultaneous streams. Which leads to the question of who can provide a service as simple as 10k streams ? Who can do it with any level of reliability ?

MORE HERE:-
http://blogmaverick.com/2009/01/27/the-great-internet-video-lie/


But isn't it the legacy media’s job/ obsession/ 'reason for being' to try to get as many viewers for a single piece of content at time of release - say one million hits - rather than, say, 400 hundred pieces of content each pulling in 2500 hits.

And that’s before you even consider an editorial ability to build a community around that stream of content, and the ability for the audience to comment, post video responses, make content, to contribute to the stream (eg LG15: the show is yours, lg15today.blogspot.com, or even skulladay.com)

Surely the strength of internet content is that it isn’t a one way transmission?

I think I’m thinking, you don’t necessarily need 10,000 people to view a single piece of content simultaneously in order for something to become huge…?

What do you think?
See COMMENTS below