this is because it costs too much money and doesnt bring any in, right?

On 3/29/08, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   Here we go again. :)
>
> This message came through from VideoEgg, which I would never have
> heard of, except you were forced to use them to upload stuff to
> Current.TV.
>
> Same deal, earlier notice so people can get their videos.
>
> Bill
> http://BillCammack.com
>
> Attention: my.videoegg.com users
>
> It is with our sincerest regret to inform you that we will be closing
> the doors on the Videoegg Publisher Platform and related services at
> http://my.videoegg.com/. You can download all of your content from our
> servers, so be sure to stop by our site to reclaim your belongings.
>
> Our last day of service will be May 31, 2008. Account creation and
> video uploading are already disabled.
>
> We understand that you may have some questions and direct you to our
> updated FAQ to find the answers to common questions. It's been a great
> ride, so let's enjoy these last months together, reminisce about how
> far we've come, and finish strong with some awesome video blogging.
>
> Thank you for your participation and for your support of Videoegg.
> It's been a pleasure working with you.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Videoegg Staff
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah. There are threads appearing on stage6 forums about where
> people are moving to,
> > the scramble has begun.
> >
> > eg:
> >
> > http://www.stage6.com/forum/712/19420/
> >
> > Things that would have been attractive about stage6 were quality,
> res & filesize limits,
> > existing familiarity with Divx format and/or having hardware that
> played it. Also as divx
> > files are avi, and avi is still a popular format for certain
> sections of users, divx may have
> > been favoured for offline playability on Windows.
> >
> > So there are opportunities for video hosts to win these sorts of
> potential content creator
> > users over. If you are a video host who has been testing higher res
> h264-based flash
> > playback privately, now might be a good time to whack it out as an
> alpha or beta whilst
> > the world of 'who does high quality best' is in shift following the
> disappearance of stage6.
> > Or highlighting any existing high-res, long clip, divx compatibility
> or other attractive
> > features also makes sense.
> >
> > I guess a few sites support the uploading of divx, do any others
> make use of the divx stuff
> > for embedded video playback of this stuff in browser?
> >
> > Unfortunately it sounds like some of stage6's features also made it
> a more attractive
> > destination for people pirating material in full length at high
> quality in a format some
> > really prefer, so they had quite a lot of problems with this. I also
> just read that there was
> > some sort of server compromise earlier this year, some defacement
> and compromise of
> > user account details.
> >
> > As usual I probably make the mistake of being a bit too net & vlog
> centric when criticising
> > DivX and writing them off. Stage6 ended up being a giant pain in the
> ass for them, and its
> > unclear if the bad will generated by the closing of stage6 will mean
> the whole episode did
> > more harm than good in the end. Meanwhile they make their mooney by
> doing things with
> > hardware player companies. I still think h264 will squeeze them here
> over time, but as
> > DivX playback support has recently been added to some games
> consoles, the brand is still
> > alive enough for companies to fork out for certification, and so
> people will still create &
> > convert to that format, and it has a future. Plus if they are
> intending to do a new DivX that
> > uses stuff from h264, they could survive longterm.
> >
> > I wonder if DivX will look to other areas to nurture legitimate uses
> for DivX as a format
> > that people obtain video in, or whether they will just give up on
> that side of things. Before
> > stage6 existed I used to say they needed more legit divx content,
> now we've come full
> > circle and they dont want to pay the large costs to do that anymore,
> and I dont know how
> > easy it will be for them to get many 3rd parties to use their
> format. Still despite all my
> > years of hope regarding h264, theres a long way to go for
> simplifying the computer video
> > format muddle, not so clearcut as the recently concluded blueray vs
> hd-dvd battle. I can
> > make it sound like h264 is god by mentioning its use in both those
> formats, but from what
> > I understand most HD titles on disc have used VC1 the Microsoft
> codec, rather than h264,
> > although both are supported by blueray & hddvd players.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Steve Elbows
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Bill Cammack" <billcammack@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Unfortunate.
> > >
> > > Eggs in Baskets, people. Have redundant copies of your material on
> > > the net or at least on local storage.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > > http://BillCammack.com
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Steve Watkins" <steve@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yeah from what Ive heard there is some backlash about this, far too
> > > little notice, not very
> > > > reasonable, and no pathway to transfer the videos to another
> service.
> > > >
> > > > Its a shame, DivX stuff in the browser was quite good although Ive
> > > long been negative
> > > > about its chances of success compared to other formats. DivX bought
> > > Mainconcept last
> > > > year, who make h264 encoder & decoder software, so I thought they
> > > had some strategy for
> > > > the future to remain relevent, but if nobody is using DivX on the
> > > web and they closed their
> > > > own platform then I see them slipping further into irrelevance.
> > > >
> > > > There was some rumor that stage6 closed down rather than surviving
> > > as a seperate entity,
> > > > because the DivX board couldnt agree ownership percentages for the
> > > new entity. What a
> > > > waste!
> > > >
> > > > And people on stock forums wonder why their shares dont perform too
> > > well. Without a
> > > > successful strategy to keep their format relevent, I think DivX will
> > > just be a memory within
> > > > 5 years.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > Steve Elbows
> > > >
> > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com<videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "schlomo rabinowitz"
> > > <schlomo@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think its sad. They have been good to people in their
> > > community; even
> > > > > offering random gigs along the way.
> > > > > What I dont like is that the user only have 3 days to get their
> > > vids off the
> > > > > site before it shuts down. That seems a little too quick as I
> imagine
> > > > > stage6 has known that things were going to end up dark for a while
> > > now. It
> > > > > just seems so abrupt.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Renat Zarbailov <innomind@>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Despite the quality and speed of DIVX HD for streaming,
> > > compared to
> > > > > > FLV, I never trusted myself to upload any vids to Stage6.
> > > Encoding to
> > > > > > DIVX has always been error-prone and that was the only
> reason why I
> > > > > > stayed away from it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Renat
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Schlomo Rabinowitz
> > > > > http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
> > > > > http://hatfactory.net
> > > > > AIM:schlomochat
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>  
>



-- 
http://geekentertainment.tv


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to