Whatever...

YouTube: the internet’s most successful failure

By Alexandra Radius

 

Everybody knows the incredible success of YouTube but something people are less aware of is the massive operating costs paid by YouTube to cover its huge internet connection and bandwidth needs, so its content can be accessed by millions of users all over the world.

 

According to a recent report by financial analysts at Crédit Suisse, YouTube/Google may well lose $470m in 2009. That puts it in a far worse position than some of the biggest names in the beleaguered print press where staff layoffs and potential closures seem to be announced weekly.  

 

As the report points out, YouTube’s fundamental problem is that it can’t find sufficient advertisers, as most will not pay to support amateur videos and photos. The videos which are the most often viewed are the ones which cost YouTube the most money and also tend to have content that advertisers don’t necessarily want their brand associated with.  Would you pay to sponsor a video showing a football referee being attacked? Exactly… 

 

In an effort to generate revenue, YouTube has already tried to establish partnerships with a number of Hollywood studios and record companies to broadcast professional, paid-for content, but this solution hasn’t yet enabled the website to show a profit.

 

So what’s the solution? Should YouTube propose paid for services similar to iTunes? Other ways could be to establish use limitations to control bandwidth or launch a subscription system for professional accounts. The real question is, would you prefer to see YouTube disappear or would you prefer to pay for some of the content? Maybe you’ll chose to save money and use peer-to-peer instead, but that’s another debate…

What will come of playing in the cloud?

By Ben Roberts

 

Cloud computing has already made waves in the business world, and now it’s looking to take over the video games industry.  Steve Perlman, the man behind the beginnings of video streaming with Apple’s QuickTime, has developed OnLive and hopes to revolutionise the gaming industry.  Essentially OnLive uses cloud computing to facilitate high powered gaming even if the end user has a low power computer; all that can limit the standard of service is the user’s bandwidth.

 

In theory it makes sense, but I don’t see how any cloud could have enough power to fuel gamers’ habits!  We’re talking about huge volumes of data being transferred in real time and the processing power of the OnLive servers would have to be enormous – at any point millions of gamers could be placing incredible strain on the system.

 

If OnLive doesn’t work, we’re just looking at another fantasy gaming machine that failed to deliver, much like the Phantom.  But if this does work, many are predicting the end of console gaming and a spell of dominance for OnLive.

 

This could be disastrous.  By having only one dominant means of gaming, developers and publishers would dedicate funds to this area, leaving developing systems and ideas to sit unfulfilled.  Competition may become fierce in terms of developing games, but competition would be all but non-existent in terms of developing gaming systems. 

 

All this would lead to is a stagnation of the industry and a serious deterioration in the influence of innovation.  To understand the importance of innovation in gaming, consider the Nintendo Wii and Nintendo DS series which have sold 50 million and 100 million units respectively.  Nintendo have broken down barriers in gaming, found success across all demographics and opened up the gaming industry.

 

It’s ironic that a brilliantly innovative product like OnLive could destroy further innovation in gaming systems development.  Let’s hope that even if OnLive is a hit, other consoles will continue to be successful and push our experiences further.

No more hiding behind anonymity

By Mike King

 

The issue of leaving anonymous comments on the net has long been contentious, but there are a growing number of cases where people are claiming legal redress against the leavers of defamatory anonymous comments.

 

In one such case in California, it looks as though the law may be coming down against the case for anonymity.  A couple is taking legal action against a web forum to make it reveal the identity of people who posted anonymous comments about them.  The couple, who were cleared of a sexual assault charge, claim that the comments made about them are defamatory.  

 

And there are plenty of other similar examples, such as the Maxon/mywebtimes.com and cvillenews.com cases.

 

It’s about time too.  The culture of anonymous commenting has long been an unpleasant part of the net but still it continues.  Back in 2006 Shel Isreal posted his living room comment policy refusing to accept anonymous comments on his blog.

 

It seems pretty clear to me that people should be held accountable for their comments in a public forum, whether online or otherwise.  Apart from the obvious cowardice of hiding behind anonymously posting comments, anonymity hides vested interests, makes it far too easy for people to lie and often provides a forum for abuse.  The whole practice strikes me as rather pathetic. 

 

To have any credibility, comments need to be attributed and the author should be prepared to stand by them.  Perhaps the legal challenges being made will change net culture for the better.

Connecting for Health in need of urgent resuscitation

By Andy Chatterton  

With the amount of media exposure around the National Programme for IT (NPfIT) – the body which oversees the NHS programme, Connecting for Health (CfH) – it’s easy to believe that the NHS’ IT systems are a complete mess.

With chief executive of leading hospitals lambasting various aspects of the NPfIT, claiming that the systems currently being installed are already ‘causing heartache and hard work’, and worryingly, costing money, there is a severe lack of faith in the Programme from the very people it is meant to be helping. 

CfH is designed to reform the way the NHS in England uses information, improving services and patient care.  A recent House of Commons Public Account Committee report, which originally acknowledged the Programme’s aims as  ambitious, has since concluded that they are bordering on the impossible.  For example, the Care Records Service is four years behind schedule (now due 2014), and while the Programme started with four Local Service Providers, two have now left, with Fujitsu’s departure causing acute problems for Trusts in the South in England (my neck of the woods).

To say these IT problems are ironic is an understatement; was there ever an organisation in such dire need of even the most basic technology?

For example, a young relative of mine, recently diagnosed with a serious kidney condition, was referred by her local hospital to Great Ormond Street.  Her parents waited and waited for the children’s hospital to get in touch and begin her treatment.

After two weeks with no contact, her folks contacted GOSH to find out they knew nothing about her.   They were aghast to learn their local hospital sent a letter, which obviously never arrived in London.  Her parents were then forced to fax over their copy of the letter to GOS to ensure that their daughter could start to receive the treatment she urgently needed.

Surely, even in local hospitals, the technology must be in place that allows doctors to communicate more effectively with each other, especially with serious cases, rather than sending a letter.  With a huge percentage of the UK population having access to email, why is the NHS still relying on the Royal Mail?  Haven’t they even heard of the phone?

Clearly the changes the NPfIT is bringing in are crucial and much needed, but those responsible have to get better in implementing them, there is technology out there that can help to ensure projects are completed on time and on budget, allowing managers to foresee potential problems and reacting to them before they cause delays.   This is obviously being overlooked at the moment.

I mentioned the aim of the Programme above, but if those responsible are to truly improve service and the quality of patient care, they may have to go back to the basics, before setting out on more ambitious, expensive and seemingly out of control projects.