Quote:
Originally Posted by feesch
The internet was not designed to cope with huge volumes of video based content – and video is where the big money is. Big money to create and big money to distribute.
|
It's just data, it's exactly what the internet was designed for.
Quote:
|
the bottom line is if you want to carry on watching TV – and Hi-Def TV – someone has to pay for it. So unless you have some clever argument of why you will pay thousands a year for internet access to cope with the video demands, and can prove others will do likewise, the only result is to look to advertising.
|
False dilemma.
Quote:
|
No one likes crap or irrelevant ads, so how can web 3.0 create automated ways of doing just that? Welcome to the Phorm debate – as I said, it is DoubleClick cookies (content - web 1.0) and Facebook Beacon (communication - web 2.0) leading to Phorm (convergence – web 3.0).
|
You should be in comedy
I don't accept 3rd party cookies, I don't have a facebook account and I'm not going to be Phormed. You can't claim to be tech savvy and not be aware of the disdain for "web 2.0", it was called DHTML when we were doing stuff like that a decade ago. Executives buy the emperors new clothes, we in the trenches see right through what we're being paid to tailor.
Quote:
I have no huge answers, but you are not going to stop this (completely) as long as people want quality and relevant content – so surely will be better if we can think how can we ensure that there is an acceptable line for all parties that delivers relevance whilst maintaining (a degree) of anonymity?
Isn't that how we will win?
|
I don't care about winning, I care about not having my communications illegally intercepted by network level malware. Nothing else is relevant to this discussion.