exactly. the strength of livecasting can really shine for citizen jounalistic coverage.... take for instance todays devastating news out of Virginia.
On 4/16/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, somehow i forgot to add the sentence that indicated the irony > of me writing that while posting all the featureless mundanities of > my life up from my mobile every day. My wife looks at me during some > of my movlogs with the same pity and confusion. (Those that don't > feature our baby, mostly). But still, it's a minority pursuit, and > not about to take over from edited/directed stuff in terms of either > ease, entertainment or popularity, that was my point. > > > On 16 Apr 2007, at 22:50, Rupert wrote: > > Yeah. It's funny that it's getting so much attention. Live stuff > comes around as The Next Big Thing every year, it seems. > > But surely it complements, rather than replaces, recorded media. > It's just another tool to be able to use cheaply and easily, and > increasingly in a Web 2 kind of way. > > It's interesting to watch when it's a tech innovation - like Steve > using his N95 - and if it's someone who has a large audience or > readership a certain number are going to tune in... > > But really, my wife just looked over my shoulder at the video of that > guy driving and she then looked at me with such pity and confusion > that I find it hard to imagine the general public really getting into > watching some dude drive round Hawaii house hunting in large > numbers. Unless they've got a LOT of time on their hands, they're > going to prefer edited and directed material most of the time. But > the live roaming interactivity of it is pretty cool. > > Yeah - I could have done with this when I was in my suit job, > conducting teleconferences with investors in the US - showing them > our management and facilities in real time would have been amazing. > > And I can see myself using it with my family across the world. Like > our videoblogging FlashMeetings. > > On the other hand, you could say that at its core this stuff is just > about wireless webcams, which are used in these ways already - and > how many of us actually tune in to random webcams for more than a > minute or so? Unless there's someone stripping at the other end. Or > so I hear. > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ > http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ > > On 16 Apr 2007, at 21:59, Ryan Ozawa wrote: > > Say, Steve, with your N95 and your live video experiments... were you > sending your video out over WiFi, or over the cellular data network > (i.e. > EVDO or EDGE or whatever)? > > Todd "GeekNewsCentral" Cochrane took viewers house hunting all over > Honolulu > yesterday, and it was oddly riveting... even the driving! And to have a > gaggle of people commenting on properties and prices along with him was > pretty cool. He was able to read and respond to our comments live: > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7839716112523947672&hl=en > > It's getting to the point where this is plug-n-play. The laptop solution > would require a camera and data card, the phone solution ain't cheap > if the > N95 is your pick, but still, imagine what this took two years ago? Now > you're looking at under a grand, half that in some cases. > > Could it be live video will become easier to do than edited and > archived? I > guess it makes sense in a way... people "get" synchronous communication > naturally. > > Ryan > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
