 Abrir artículo en el Browser. | ||
| May 24 , 2005 Remote Access between PC´s. By Cade Metz In years past, remote control and remote access weren't exactly technologies of the masses. Complicated and expensive, applications like Laplink and pcAnywhere were rarely used by anyone other than IT professionals and other seasoned computer users. In recent years, all this has changed, with dramatic improvements in the usability and pricing of utilities that give you access to your other PCs, whether they're across town or on the other side of the world. Which is right for you? Much depends on how many machines you have, how you use them, and how much you're willing to spend. With some services, the base price gives you remote access to only one machine. And though most give you a discount if you sign up for a full year of service, these vary from about 10 percent (FolderShare) to 55 percent (LogMeIn Pro). | ||
 | ||
| Despite its many imitators, the original, GoToMyPC ($19.95 per month and up), is still the most effective remote control tool on the Web—and the easiest to use. You can tap into a remote PC from any Java-enabled browser, freely navigating its OS as if it were right there in front of you. Equipped with a built-in file transfer tool, it's a great way to access important data. But it's also great for support. In accessing a friend's machine, not only can you navigate the system, but you can also chat and draw on the friend's desktop with a virtual marker. If need be, you can even reboot your remote system. But the real beauty of the app is how easy it is to use. You simply download a small client to the PC you want to control and assign a password to the system. From then on, you can access your machine by logging on to your account and keying in the system password. GoToMyPC does cost a pretty penny, and though it can be used on certain wireless handhelds, it doesn't work well over dial-up connections. ($9.95 per month) solves both these problems. It's cheaper than GoToMyPC, and though it does offer full remote control, it can also make low-bandwidth HTML-based connections, accessing only certain important parts of a remote system, including your e-mail in-box, your calendar, and your file tree. This sort of approach is ideal for use over dial-up or on a wireless handheld. But the full remote control isn't as slick or as fast as what you get with GoToMyPC, and the low-bandwidth functions are only marginally useful if your remote machine isn't running Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express. | ||
 | ||
| ($9.95 per month) carries the same price tag as Laplink Everywhere and operates along the same lines. You can do full remote control, or you can opt for quick and dirty HTML connections. The difference is that its full remote control, while still not the equal of GoToMyPC's, is far more impressive than Laplink's. One nice bonus here: You can stream video from a remote PC's webcam. Not only can you check up on your PC, you can even check up on the room it's sitting in. I f you have a webcam installed, I'm InTouch automatically finds it and starts streaming video as soon as you click the appropriate link.  Don't want to spend even $10 a month? 3am Labs' LogMeIn Basic gives you full remote control, free. It won't transfer files to and from your remote PC or do remote printing, but it's nearly as slick and as fast as GoToMyPC, and if you need to transfer files, you can do so by remote-controlling e-mail. The company has two more powerful versions of the product, each $12.95.
WebEx's free product, MyWebEx PC, isn't quite as impressive as LogMeIn. With the free version of LogMeIn, for example, you can access an unlimited number of remote machines, whereas MyWebEx PC limits you to one.(Webex free is no longer available. July 2007) But its designers have worked out a few bugs since we first reviewed the product in February, and the full version of the tool, which includes file transfer, remote printing, and application-specific access much like you get with Laplink Everywhere, is only $9.95 per month. BeInSync or ByteTaxi's FolderShare Install BeInSync ($59.95 per year) or ByteTaxi's FolderShare ($48.60 to $72.90 per year) and you may not need remote control. Each of these apps lets you keep certain files and folders automatically synchronized between two or more machines. You can also use them to share files with other users—and yes, you can do remote access from any Web browser with either service. Both are available free, in limited form, and they're far more versatile than standard remote control apps. BeInSync's interface is more intuitive. Unlike FolderShare, it lets you easily synchronize e-mail messages, contacts, and bookmarks, not just files. But the company has yet to pin down its price, saying that it will up the annual rate to $99.95 but not committing to a date or even to a general time frame. | ||
|
Monday, August 20, 2007
Remote ASP access services to PC.s
Home & Soho´s unified Data Storage
 IP TECHNOLOGY SOHO-DATA STORAGE |
| On a Home Network, the Right Drive Means Storage for All By LARRY MAGID Published: August 2, 2007 |
 Illustration by Katherine Choi |
It does not take much effort these days to accumulate several hundred gigabytes of data. A few hundred songs, a couple of vacations' worth of photos, a dozen movies and television programs — and suddenly the 80 gigabyte hard drive in the notebook computer is straining. Attaching an external hard drive is the obvious solution, but when everyone in the household wants access to all the content at any time from any room, the data-engulfed consumer needs to go one step further, to network-attached storage. The difference between regular external hard drives and network-attached storage drives is simple. If you have two or more computers connected to the same router, then you have all the infrastructure you need for a local area network. The software for connecting PCs and Macs is built into all recent versions of Windows and Mac OS X, so that you can make files on your computer accessible to the others by turning on file sharing. Connect an external hard drive to one of those computers with a U.S.B. cable, and the contents on that extra drive can also be accessed by everyone on the network. It can be, at least, as long as the computer attached to that hard drive is running and plugged into the drive. Should the computer crash or be turned off by the energy-wise user or be spirited off to the office or the beach, no one would have access to the data. Network-attached storage solves that problem. It is an external hard drive that is attached to the router by an Ethernet cable so that all computers attached to that router, by wire or wirelessly, can get whatever is stored on it. Shared storage can also make life easier for homes with both PCs and Macs because, in most cases, the drive can be accessed from either platform. Most shared storage systems come with software to automatically back up computers connected to the network. Some even allow access to the data from locations far from the home via the Internet. The hardest part may be figuring out which drives on the store shelves are network-attached storage drives. Many such products use the word "shared" to differentiate themselves, but otherwise the box should say "network-attached storage" or "N.A.S." Another tip-off: A network-attached storage device uses an Ethernet cable, not U.S.B., though it may also have a U.S.B. port for connecting additional drives or printers. In theory, adding a network storage device should be easy. The Windows and Mac sections of the start-up guide for the Maxtor Shared Storage II, for example, are each only two pages long. Simply plug in the power, use the supplied Ethernet cable to connect the drive to the router and run the install CD on one of the networked computers. Prices range from $200 for a 320 gigabyte version to $500 for a terabyte (1,000 gigabytes) of storage. But it's not always all that easy. Although installation was pretty effortless on a Windows XP machine and on a Mac running OS X, it initially did not work with Windows Vista. It required finding and following complex instructions on a Maxtor product support Web site. The Maxtor drive also has two U.S.B. ports that can be used to add additional external drives or to connect a printer that can be accessed by any machine on the network. Finally, the drive can stream video or music files stored on it to a home entertainment device like the Xbox 360 that is compliant with the Universal Plug and Play AV or Digital Living Network Alliance protocols. |
 |
| What if you want the data when you are at the office or on the road? Western Digital'sMyBook World Edition hard drives not only plug into a home network but also can be accessed remotely at no additional charge. The software, which works only with Windows XP (a Vista version is expected soon) allows you to see files on the drive through Windows Explorer or use any program's "open" or "save as" commands to get to the hard drives. For $49.95 a year, you can get additional services that give you access to files on all Windows PCs on your home network from any Windows machine connected to the Internet. MyBook World Edition network drives start at $250 for the 500 gigabyte version and continue up to the recently released 2 terabyte model, at $800. Like the Maxtor model, this drive has a U.S.B. you can use to plug in an additional external device. Network-attached drives cost more than regular external drives. Western Digital's shared 500 gigabyte MyBook World Edition drive costs only $20 more than its 500 gigabyte counterpart that has no network accessibility. With Maxtor, the price difference is higher, about $100. For those willing to buy and install their own internal hard drives, which cost less than external drives, the $130 Linksys NAS200 Network System offers a great deal of flexibility. The device doesn't come with any hard drives, but it has bays for two internal SATA 3.5-inch drives, the type used in most desktop PCs. If that's not enough, there are two U.S.B. ports for external drives. The two internal drives can be configured as one virtual drive or, to provide extra backup, as a redundant array of independent drives, known as RAID. Drives can be accessed locally or remotely through a Web interface. With 500 gigabyte internal drives available for about $130, this do-it-yourself solution works out to roughly the same price as devices with drives. The advantage is that as the price of higher-capacity drives drops and the amount of data you are storing grows, you can upgrade later by swapping out drives. There is yet another flexible variation of network-attached storage devices, although it is a bit more expensive. Linksys and Apple offer wireless routers with a U.S.B. port to accommodate an external drive. With the Linksys WRT350N Wireless-N Gigabit Router with Storage Link ($160), you can plug in a regular external hard drive that can then be seen by any computer on the network. It's also a very fast router, using the latest standard for wireless transmission, 802.11n. Apple's AirPort Extreme Base Station ($180), which works with Macs and Windows PCs, also uses the 802.11n standard, but its three wired Ethernet ports work at the slower 100 megabit speed. These routers also work with the new Drobo "storage robot" from Data Robotics, according to Dan Stevenson, president of Data Robotics. The $500 enclosure holds up to four internal drives that you buy separately. It automatically mirrors data between drives for backup in case one drive fails. Sometimes keeping things simple is the best strategy. If you have just an occasional need to move files between computers, you can make do with a stand-alone external U.S.B. hard drive. (Some are small and sleek, so you can easily move them from one machine to another as you would a flash drive. It's what techies call sneakernet.) But if you want the flexibility of an always-on drive that can back up your files and be accessed from any of your machines, a network drive is the way to go. With either system, though, consider backing up valuable and irreplaceable files off-site with an online storage service or on CDs or DVDs. |
Analog video formats to DVD
 TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS |
| So Long to the Analog Era; Home Movies Reborn on DVD By ALINA TUGEND Published: August 4, 2007 |
|
|
| OVER the years, we have videotaped many precious moments: the birthday parties, the out-of-tune recorder concerts, the school plays ("Is that him? No, look behind the moving cactus"), the baseball all-star game (lovely except for the voiceover of my shouting "Over here! Look over here!"). We started with a camcorder that uses Hi8 analog videotape, which looks like a thick cassette tape, and we never upgraded. So we had lots of tapes lying around that we intended to one day do something with. With our oldest son's bar mitzvah rapidly approaching, I decided that the time had come. A slide show seems to be de rigueur at bar mitzvahs. Although they are usually done with still photos, we decided to look through videos as well. Step 1: finding them. I thought they were in one closet, but they had been moved when we painted. After a panicked hunt through the house, I discovered them buried deep in a storage area in a torn shopping bag. The collection turned out to be 16 Hi8 tapes, none dated. They were dusty and looked very discouraging. I transferred them to another bag and put them aside. Ideally, someone would take them, edit them into a glossy, ready-for-TV show of our happy life. Realistically, I simply wanted to put them on DVDs so we could more easily watch and edit them. There are a number of ways to accomplish this:
I considered buying a DVD recorder. One popular option is the Sony DVDirect VRD-MC3, which costs $200 to $250 and can burn analog recordings to DVDs. If you are willing to sit through the entire recording process, you can stop, fast forward or change tapes, thereby editing the video and creating chapters on the DVD's menu with thumbnail images. Otherwise, you just drop it in and let it roll. The machine has won raves from many reviewers; one called it "shockingly simple." Consumer Reports, for example, said in its June magazine that Sony's burner was easy to use and that DVDs made at the highest quality setting were "as good as the original analog recording." So, that was one option. It sounded simple, but I was not sure I wanted to add yet another machine to our house. And I was a little wary, picturing myself covered in videotape as the burner tossed DVDs around like Frisbees — not because of any malfunction on its part, of course, but because of my technological impatience. Another option is to move videos directly from tapes to your computer. It is easy to do if you have digital tape, known as mini DV, but analog tape is a different story. There are devices that can convert the video output from your camcorder or VCR to a digital signal for your computer to record. Some run about $50 and are available through Pinnacle (www.pinnaclesys.com), ADS (www.ADStech.com) or Hauppauge (www.hauppauge.com). You plug your camcorder or VCR into the device's video and audio jacks and connect the device to your computer via U.S.B. port. There are also internal devices that can be installed in your computer. I have not used any of these, and reading a blog about them showed mixed experiences. Although you have more control over editing than when transferring directly to DVD, this approach is more labor intensive and the videos can quickly fill up a hard drive, said Paul Eng of ConsumerReports.org. Keith Shaw, the Cool Tools columnist at Network World magazine, added that "the trend is to take the PC out of the equation." "Although it takes about the same amount of time as using the box," he said, "it adds complexity." |
|
|
| Using a burner like Sony's or a converter linked to a computer, "my biggest complaint is the amount of time it takes," Mr. Shaw said. "You have to do it in real time. For example, I have a three-hour wedding video I want to transfer, so I have block out three hours. I can push the button and walk away, but what if something goes wrong? That's the biggest hurdle." I had assumed that DVDs would last longer than tapes, but surprisingly, the jury is still out. It depends on the quality of the DVD, whether it is a burned or pressed DVD, and how the tapes and DVDs are stored. A good piece of advice is to save your tapes even after you get them transferred to DVD. Digitizing the tapes is important, however, because it will make it easy to edit the videos and to transfer them to the next medium, Mr. Shaw said. For people like me, who long for simplicity, there is nothing easier than taking the tapes to my local camera store. So that is what I did with four of them. The store, Home Fair Camera in Larchmont, N.Y., charged $24.99 for each two-hour tape and had them ready in DVD cases after a few days. I had asked for a rush, for which the store did not charge extra. Some of the tapes were 10 years old, but even after being transferred they still looked very good. "I've seen tapes from the early 1980s where the sound is muffled and the picture quality is not that great," said John Lamagna, owner of Home Fair Camera. "You definitely see a difference in quality from the 1980s and 1990s. "I'm still transferring 8-millimeter movie films," he said. "I can't believe how much of that is out there." I sent four others by mail to an online service, the Photo Archival Company (www.thephotoarchivalco.com), which charges $12.95 for each two-hour tape and offers one free transfer if you send in a dozen. You can also contact your local Ritz Camera store, Walgreens or CVS. I called a Ritz Camera in Manhattan, which, for $29.99, will transfer two hours of video to DVD. Anything after that is $19.99 a DVD. Among the least expensive methods was an online service, VideoSilo.com, that will transfer a two-hour Hi8 tape to DVD for $7.95. The prices are for simply plopping the entire tape onto DVD. Most also offer editing for a higher price. The DVDs that came back from Photo Archival also looked great, although they were in paper envelopes rather than hard plastic cases. The company had offered classier covers, for a higher price. Actually only three of the four tapes I sent the company came back as DVDs, because one was blank — so no charge there. The cost is obviously higher when handing the tapes over to a local store, but some people hesitate to put their prized videos in the mail. Charles Laughlin, a partner at the Photo Archival, said a couple had recently driven from Tallahassee, Fla., to his office hundreds of miles away, in Duluth, Ga., to deliver four tapes. "They were a retired couple whose home had been destroyed in a hurricane in 1995. Every video, every photo had been destroyed," Mr. Laughlin said. "A member of their family had recently passed away, and in the legacy was a videotape of their wedding in 1950. They did not want to put it in the mail." Mr. Eng of ConsumerReports.org said he would also be hesitant to give his only copy of tapes to a local store. "They could mangle it or drop it by a magnet, or you may not want people to look at your home movies," he said. He also sees the value of editing: "I may not need 10 minutes of me shooting the ground." For me, letting a professional transfer the video was probably the best option. In the end, I would go with one of the online services because they are less expensive and just as good as the local options. When the DVDs arrived in the mail, my sons had just come home from camp. I told them I had something to show them. Expecting a new movie, they were surprised, and then entranced. For a good hour they watched themselves as babies and toddlers. Tonight's entertainment? Disc 2, "The Kindergarten Years." |
Erik S. Lesser for The New York Times
IP Radio Broadcasting Colombia
 Abrir artículo en el Browser. | ||
| Agosto 11 de 2007 Emisoras web que se lo toman en serio. CARLOS SOLANO REDACTOR DE EL TIEMPO Surgieron de un proyecto casero y ahora asumen grandes retos | ||
 | ||
| Mario Carvajal. el hombre detras de Bandolitis. sitio de música colombiana. | ||
Cuando llegó la primera cotización de Sayco, a Mario Carvajal casi le da un 'patatús'. Tendría que pagar 70 millones de pesos para seguir haciendo lo que mantuvo durante dos años, solo por gusto: Exponer la mejor música andina colombiana en su blog Bandolitis (www.bandolitis.com), que de repente se convirtió en la única vitrina del bambuco en la red mundial. "Es que si no lo haces así, ¿cuándo vas a escuchar un bambuco por ahí?", pregunta Carvajal, diseñador de profesión y bandolista por afición. Desde el anuncio, el proyecto que consistía en hacer streaming (transmisión de audio o video en la web sin permitir descarga) de la música que Carvajal tenía en sus discos, estuvo congelado por 10 meses mientras negociaba con Sayco y su proveedor de Internet, pero él entendió que era un paso definitivo que debía dar hacia la legalidad. Como resultado, se redujo el cobro de 70 a un millón de pesos. Para pagarlos, Carvajal y el Trío Colombita tuvieron que organizar un concierto de caridad en el que participaron los músicos Gustavo Adolfo Rengifo, Guafa Trío, el cuarteto Perendengue, Luz Marina Posada y el Dueto Primavera, el pasado 18 de julio. Bandolitis volvió al aire hace dos meses, pero su esfuerzo evidenció que aún falta mucho trabajo para definir las reglas de juego que deben seguir las emisoras web en Colombia, pese a que la entidad protectora de derechos de autor tiene un departamento denominado Nuevos Medios. "Yo soy un 'pelagato' al que no le pueden sacar nada, así que quizás una demanda de Sayco no procedería -cuenta Carvajal, que dedica tres horas al día a su página-, pero ¿qué haría Sayco si yo viviera en Mongolia?" Bandolitis suele tener en promedio 15 oyentes conectados de manera simultánea, cifra que no parece muy significativa si se compara con las emisoras convencionales, pero es una audiencia más participativa y se despliega por todo el mundo. Pese a que hay plataformas para abrir emisoras gratuitas como Yahoo! o Rhapsody, montar una estación estable, cuya transmisión no se caiga y que soporte a un número significativo de usuarios de manera simultánea requiere inversión y planeación. Según Édgar Duque, director de Dyna Radio (www.dyna-radio.com), "puedes montar una emisora con 100 mil pesos, pero si quieres una propuesta seria, requiere fácilmente una inversión mensual de 20 millones de pesos". Su emisora, que funciona desde hace dos años y tiene 15 empleados de planta, ya cuenta con 60.000 usuarios únicos al mes, asegura Duque. Pero, aunque suene extraño, los retos que aún mantienen las emisoras web colombianas no son diferentes de los que aún tienen las estaciones en línea en todo el mundo y que solo en E.U. son usadas por más de 38 millones de personas, según el instituto de investigación Internet Pew Internet & America Life Project (ver recuadros e infografía). | ||
| ||
| ||
| Prohibida su reproducción total o parcial, así como su traducción a cualquier idioma sin autorización escrita de su titular. Reproduction in whole or in part, or translation without written permission is prohibited. All rights reserved. |
Marketing with video streaming.
BUSINESS MEDIA & ADVERTISING |
| Nothing to Watch on TV? Streaming Video Appeals to Niche Audiences By MICHEL MARRIOTT Published: August 6, 2007 |
|
|
| Buffering ... buffering ... buffering. Seeing these words blinking at the bottom of the postage-stamp-size screen during a download of jerky video defines the annoying experience of entertainment on a computer monitor. However, the potential of new streaming video services — fast, full screen and in sharp resolution — is unleashing a torrent of movies and television shows, much of it aimed at narrowly defined audiences that can't find niche programming even on cable systems with 500 or more channels. The Independent Film Channel is streaming 22 short films called "Trapped in the Closet" by the R&B recording artist R. Kelly. The Jewish Television Network, a nonprofit television production and distribution company, is streaming music videos by Jewish performers, cooking shows and Israeli news programs. The network is also planning to stream religious services during the High Holy Days in September, the sort of broadcast that would be hard to find on mainstream television. "There is extreme interest in streaming because it simplifies the process of getting video to the consumer," said Ross Rubin, the director of industry analysis for the NPD Group, a market analysis company. Streaming video, unlike downloads, never resides on a viewer's computer. It usually cannot be replayed as a downloaded file can be, which is another reason that content creators like it. The growing use and popularity of streaming among consumers are closely tied to the increasing popularity of broadband Internet connections in homes. The Pew Internet & American Life Project estimated that 47 percent of American households have broadband connections that make streaming possible because it transmits data faster. "The greater adoption of broadband in the United States is really raising the ante for all kinds of content from premium Hollywood offerings to pet videos," said Mr. Rubin, who noted that NBC and ABC have begun streaming their prime-time programming to online viewers. This year, the DVD rental company Netflix began to take advantage of click-and-view streaming of full-length films and television episodes with a subscription service. "Push a tab 'Watch Now' and more than 3,000 television episodes and movies come up in 30 seconds or less," said Steve Swasey, a Netflix spokesman. "There's no downloading." Streaming high-quality video to computers and television screens is the "first step to getting what people want to see on any screen they want, from laptops to cellphones to wide-screen televisions," Mr. Swasey said. "Netflix's goal is to get movies delivered instantly to all those different screens." |
|
|
| Companies like ReelTime, Joost, Limelight Networks and Brightcove are staking their futures on streaming video. "We're point, click and watch — instantly," said Barry Henthorn, the chief executive and co-founder of ReelTime. "We never stop and never buffer." ReelTime, based in Seattle, digitally distributes thousands of movies and television shows to customers who either rent titles for 99 cents each or subscribe to the service for $4.99 a month to $19.99 for six months. While ReelTime content can easily be watched on desktop and notebook computers, Mr. Henthorn urges customers to connect the computer to the television's larger screen for viewing because, he said, "the quality is that good." Mr. Henthorn said ReelTime's streaming technology depends on a peer-to-peer network. Some of the content comes straight from ReelTime, but to speed the delivery other portions of it are pulled from subscribers' computers that have previously downloaded the content. The more users who download the ReelTime player and view its content, the faster and better content streams to and from all users. "Right now all kinds of things are being shoved, rather inefficiently, over the Internet," Mr. Henthorn said. "Once people can watch full-screen video anytime anywhere, the tolerance for four-inch screens will go away." Streaming has been a boon to media companies catering to a narrowly defined audience. |
|
|
| FEARnet, for example, has a passion for the horror genre. It began streaming video last Halloween as the "the first multiplatform horror network," with programming that can be viewed online, on demand and on mobile devices, said its president, Diane Robina. The service, free to registered users, whom they call "victims," makes its money from banner advertisements that appear on the Web site. The site uses advanced streaming technologies to deliver full-length horror films like "The Hunger," a 1983 tale of elegant vampires. FEARnet, a joint venture of Comcast, Sony Pictures Entertainment and Lionsgate, also produces and streams original content. The site is showing a film called "Devil's Trade," about teenagers and a cursed tree in New Jersey. It was originally a six-episode series, shot digitally for the Internet. The Jewish Television Network had produced programming like "The Jewish Americans," a six-hour documentary that is scheduled to air on Public Broadcasting Service stations in January. Jay Sanderson, the company's chief executive, said he had never considered online distribution of its programming because of the low quality of the video. That changed this year when he saw the improvement. "We waited until we got to a point where the technology would not hurt our content," Mr. Sanderson said. He said much of his network's existing programming involves 30-minute pieces. But for the Internet, he said he is cutting them into three- to five-minute segments. "We're going to do some really long programs in the fall," he said. |
IP Video U.S. Statistics
 INTERNET/US VIDEO MARKET Free Newsletter |
| AUGUST 13, 2007 Online Video: Seeing the Whole Picture Video images are flooding across the Internet. |
No longer an unknown quantity or merely a sidekick to television, the online video medium is fast becoming a formidable viewing factor. eMarketer projects that the number of online video viewers in the US alone will rise from 114 million in 2006 to 183 million in 2011. |
 |
| |
"Some of the major players in the industry are fearful that the widespread availability of video content on the Internet will threaten traditional TV and film distribution models," says Paul Verna, eMarketer Senior Analyst and author of the new report, Online Video: Making Content Pay. "Conversely, others see the potential to increase revenues through a variety of new business models, including ad-supported streaming, pay-to-own downloads, subscription services and online rentals." Currently, eMarketer estimates that news is the leading type of video content viewed online, with a nearly 14% share of the total. Movie and TV trailers are a close second, at 12%, followed by music videos, at about 11%. |
 |
| |
| The lowest-ranked categories on this list are either niche genres, such as cartoons and business/financial reports, or content of longer duration, where picture quality is a consideration, such as full-length movies and TV shows. "Many online video revenue models are emerging, but the growth of an ad-revenue model for online video will be critical to the health of the industry," Mr. Verna says. By 2011, 165 million US Internet users will have seen online video advertisements, according to eMarketer projections. That number will total 90% of the online video viewership in the US. Comparatively, in 2006, 88 million people — or 77% of US online video viewers — experienced Internet video ads. |
 |
| |
"There is currently a debate among advertisers, Web publishers and consumers over the length of online video ads," Mr. Verna says. "But so far no consensus has emerged on an online equivalent to the 30-second standard that has prevailed on TV for decades." If the relationship between online video content and online video advertising is key to the growth of the Internet video industry, the interconnectedness between TV and the Internet will also play a leading role in how the market for online video evolves. "Rather than a wholesale shift in viewership from TV to the new media channels, both mediums will actually grow in the next several years," Mr. Verna says. "Internet video will entrench itself in the content mainstream, right alongside TV, although not in such pervasive numbers." According to eMarketer projections, by 2011 there will be 200 million broadband Internet users. Of them, 91% — or 183 million — will watch online videos. |
 |
| |
| "Eventually, a number of devices will converge in some form of the long-promised 'digital home,'" Mr. Verna says. "But even in the foreseeable future, consumers will use currently available technologies to enjoy all manner of video content, from Hollywood blockbusters to homespun videos." To get the whole picture, please read the new eMarketer report, Online Video: Making Content Pay, today. |
| |