DISQUS

Janis' words that witness media can be a "great aid for the traditional media channels" is dead on. I just wonder if this "aid" is always going to come free? If there was a "buy now" button underneath his now famous crash photo on Twitpick, would any big media company have clicked? (i.e suppose the photo would have been "licensed" to big media instead of just free for sharing. Is it even possible?)

Mathew, nice formatting of the Triump video on your site. When I clicked thru from the reader.. I expected to goto YouTube. But wow, an embedded NBC clip (when did they start doing that?) when I pressed play... I expected to see the "only available in the U.S." crap .. but it played in Canada! (and was damn funny)... maybe a change is finally coming to network distributed video.

I found out there is still another cost to consider before we get the privilege of being hosed by Rogers. The cost of getting out of a current cell contract and/or adding an iphone contract. Rogers couldn't do the appropriate thing and maybe, like reward their long-term customers with an easy switch to an iphone plan if they so choose. They also feel the need to get you in the wallet on even the switch. No matter how you slice it - your going to pay a penalty of some sorts if you are already under a current contract (and I'm talking about a Rogers/Fido contract -same carrier!) Your either have to break your current contract or pay a much higher iphone fee to get started (a store rep told me this.) Can someone please make me understand how any of that makes sense? I'd say the way to go is get an iphone (no contract with ANY carrier) and use it's features and wifi.

Sorry Mathew, gotta go with Ballmer on this one. The major papers are toast within 10 years (14 for sure.) I thought about how your are right, most new media don't necessarily kill off the old stuff... but I think that's more a case of the newer media not quite replicating the experience of the old media either (i.e. my DVD of Phantom of the opera is not going to stop me from wanting to see the live show.) but I do believe the online experience of reading (and interacting) with the Globe and Mail will not only replace the newspaper version, but it will be better. I don't think the argument is whether a core group of people would still opt to read the newspaper versions in 10 years (of course there will be) I think the argument becomes whether that core group of people would be enough to keep the powers that be allowing the expensive paper operations to continue. I personally can't see how. While I have no doubt the Globe and Mail brand and Toronto Star brand (for example) will exist and thrive in 10 years... will it still exist in a published daily paper form? I'd probably bet no.

I think Flickr (read: Yahoo) is gettin' in the video game because it's still a game in infancy with potential billions on the table and lots left technology-wise to still potentially offer the audience (quality, mobile etc. etc.) Sure, YouTube is the big daddy now... and how's it's name has seeped into pop culture - will probably keep it that way for a long while (it certainly ain't the technology or quality that's keeping it there) But if there is one thing the net has shown us -- it's big entrenched daddies can still fall fast. So just maybe Yahoo is taking another shot at video, and I feel quite smartly through it's already established community of content creators - Flickr - because maybe there still is a vast video industry out there to still capture share of (?)

Mathew,
If the paper's are whining that no one reads the paper version anymore, I can tell you why - $1.25 - I'm a guy that still enjoys sitting down with the "paper version" and a cup of joe (usually as a break away from the computer screen). But why do I remember paying 75 cents for my beloved Globe a litle over two years ago(?).. and recently being asked by my friendly corner grocery clerk for $1.25 for a weekday edition (I actually decided not to buy it) "Too much". I'll read it online I thought. If that's the strategy to keep the paper edition alive.. it probably is in real trouble.

Whether this behind-the-scenes Couric stuff is "ditzy" or "human" - it surely is fascinating and does add another layer to the polished program we end up seeing on CBS. I wonder if the bigger questions aren't... How is Shearer exactly getting this "leaked" footage? and maybe CBS might actually want this video getting out there so were talkin' about it? I find it more than a little coincidental this clip follows up on another "found" Couric clip of a few months ago when Katie was ripping on Dan Rather. (http://edeoplay.com/blog/?p=46)
whatever the reason.. she's still the sexiest anchor of them all.. so the more video that's out there.. the better.

Yes Mathew, it probably does say something that news of the Bhutto assassination first broke to you on twitter (I would have figured your all wired up to the Globe's newsroom... wouldn't they get a fast breaking story like this first?) But respectively, I think I am more enlightened when the news breaking on these new media sources like twitter and your blog are the stories that CNN or CBC isn't also breaking into 5 minutes later and covering for the rest of the day like the Bhutto story. The stuff we ordinarily wouldn't be hearing about from "old" media.

Yeah, YouTube boosting file size to a GB is impressive. In theory, it should mean you could upload almost uncompressed DV footage without having to go through an extra encode step - might give you slightly better quality. But this I wonder? Who's got the time and computer resources to tie up for 3-4 hour uploads for a single videos. As long the providers continue to CAP UPLOAD SPEEDS, YouTube could goto 10GB limits... and I'm not sure we Canadians could really take efficient advantage.

Viacom can claim all they want that they get the whole "web 2.0" video sharing thing - with new sites like dailyshow.com. But until they rid themselves of all the old media baggage type DRM (and yes, Viacom and CTV protecting their Canadian "TV" rights to the DailyShow is a type of DRM) Viacom and all it's satellite sites combined will never be able to really compete with the truly free YouTubes of the world (which as far as I can remember never restricted any video because I was in Canada.)

"inconvenience doesn't scale" - brilliant line. The big record companies still don't get that. I just visited the official websites of Sony and Universal music and there is still no place on these website to buy digital music.. and it's almost 2008... What are they exactly waiting for?