Online Video Popularity Still Climbing

Ant writes "Macworld reports that people in the U.S. have steadily increased the amount of time they spend watching videos online, as Google's YouTube remains by far their preferred video site, according to a study. In July, almost 75 percent of U.S. Internet users watched videos online, up from 71.4 percent in March, according to comScore Networks. The monthly time spent watching videos went up to an average of 181 minutes per viewer in July from 145 minutes per viewer in March, according to comScore. In July, the average user watched 68 clips, up from 55 clips in March. Overall, almost 134 million U.S. Internet users watched a little over 9 billion video clips in July, up from 126.6 million people and a little over 7 billion clips in March."

Re:

[Himring]

It's /. Just say something about soviet russia. It all falls into place after that....

Re:

[homey of my owney]

Just as an aside, but how can a first post be moded redundant?

For Example...

[Traegorn]

In Soviet Russia, Website Videos You!

Who doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

We are all well past the "Internet Age" hype. Video killed the radio star? How about Internet killed the TV/Movie star.

Re:Who doesn't

[allaunjsilverfox2]

Actually it's Internet Killed the video star http://www.poptix.net/funny/videostar.swf [poptix.net] ;-)

Re:Who doesn't

[cashman73]

Actually it's Internet Killed the video star http://www.poptix.net/funny/videostar.swf [poptix.net] ;-)

Not really true. MTV killed videos itself about 10 years ago when it decided to stop airing them,... replacing real music content with Beavis and Butt-Head, and crap pop culture reality shows,... The good news is, at least YouTube seems to have somewhat resurrected music videos! ;-)

Re:

[AnyoneEB]

The good news is, at least YouTube seems to have somewhat resurrected music videos! ;-)

I am not sure exactly how meaningful that is. I have a friend who does not have an especially large personal music collection... and instead just searches YouTube for a music video of whatever song she wants to listen to and leaves it playing in the background.

Beavis and Butthead died 11 years ago...

[bgstratt]

Beavis and Butthead died 11 years ago when that movie came out, MTV had to have committed suicide before that.

Re:

[FireFlie]

At least Beavis and Butthead did include music videos. The shit they play today can't even be bothered to do that.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Rick Astley Rocks

[gadlaw]

He doesn't really 'rock' but I've always liked him. I'm rediscovering music videos at youtube, veoh and stage6.divx for music videos from around the world. Russian trance, jpop, cpop, kpop, European pop, 80's, 90's and just stuff I wouldn't have ever heard of. I'm learning guitar faster with lazyfret on youtube and there is also interesting anime and much more available. Who knew they even made videos any longer, who knew that Dolores O'Riordan from the Cranberries had a new album out and it sounds great. T

Re:

[vimh42]

Sounds about right. Though I don't think the TV/Movie star is dead quite yet. But perhaps some people get a little more entertainment out of something that is a little more real. Any idiot with a video camera can make a movie. And sometimes those idiots are quite entertaining.

Demand will be met

[mcrbids]

When customers don't get what they want, they'll look for a way to get it. And when somebody provides what the customers want, they'll buy it.

How much simpler could it be?

I want to watch what I want to watch, when I want to watch it, and I'll pay up to a couple bucks a day to get it. I don't want to wait, and I don't want alot of hassle. What we're seeing is the end of an era - the era of broadcast television. Broadcast television will wane, and the quality of online video developed under alternative business models will improve. (We hope - most of the YouTube content is either pirate or just awful to watch)

But the ability is there, and the public networks aren't (so far) willing to adapt. So they'll die.

How much simpler could it be?

Re:

[norkakn]

Yeah, I'm watching the AFL-CIO primary debates, and I'm glad that I didn't watch it live.

Any clue if the comedy central motherload thing makes money?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Advertising will pay, and things are better.

[Erris]

I want to watch what I want to watch, when I want to watch it, and I'll pay up to a couple bucks a day to get it.

You'll pay that couple of bucks a day, but not directly. Advertising budgets that used to go to broadcasters and printed material are now going to their online equivalents. You get to watch when you want and how you want and the actual artist gets their cut of advertising revenue the way Google does it. Others will do things the same way and everyone will win as things move closer to actual f

Re:

[MikeFM]

The low quality is one of the reasons I don't use YouTube and similar sites much. I still perfer downloading DVD quality video with bit torrent. The only thing something like YT is good for imo is a previw of the content.

I also like to download the content so it can't be taken away tomorrow because someone reported a copyright violation or thought the content wasn't appropiate or whatever. If I have a copy on my computer then I'm not subject to the whims of others.

When those problems are fixed I think the i

Re:

[Keeper Of Keys]

The low quality is one of the reasons I don't use YouTube

http://stage6.divx.com/videos/ [divx.com]

Re:

[MikeFM]

An improvement but I do think Flash is better for previewing the content and a download link would be helpful.

Re:Demand will be met

[suv4x4]

What we're seeing is the end of an era - the era of broadcast television.

Now, now. Don't be so quick. I agree we're in the early stages of transition, and in the next years we'll see lots of channels broadcast on the internet, but don't kill classic TV just yet.

You know they killed radio and cinema when TV was introduced, and killed cinema yet again with VHS. Then with DVD again (but ok.. VHS died :) ).

There are currently a billion or more folks world wide at 30+ who prefer the passive experience of cable/air TV (I'm not saying it's a bad thing either), and the market will continue to deliver to this market, if even for the sheer amount of investment in broadcast equipment they already have.

For the longest time I see content being broadcast on both classical TV and on demand. While in the next 5 years I expect the Internet on-demand/live streaming business will boom, I expect it won't be before 20-30 years that we see classic broadcast TV become a niche and disappear, if ever.

Re:

[KGIII]

Hey! I still have some of my VHS tapes! But on a serious note, I don't think we'll even begin to see television or even typical print media types "die" for a great long time because there are still too many places (in my country at least) where broadband rollouts have stimied the bean counters. Oddly that country is America but that's a story for another day.

Re:

[jumperboy]

But whose demands will be met?

There is a constant battle between the demands of the viewer and the demands of the provider. Switching the venue doesn't change a thing.

Sure, there is the brief period when the provider is wooing the viewer away from a rival. But once the transition is complete, things are subject to change in favor of the provider, who has the upper hand. There's no doubt that disruptive technologies deliver new benefits, but we've seen this before. I remember when cable was introduced i

If you want to see how Internet can replace TV,

[Burz]

...then try out Miro.

http://getmiro.org/ [getmiro.org]

I'll describe this FOSS program in terms Slashdotters will grok:
* RSS feed reader - video feeds
* with built-in video player (multi-format, based on the excellent VLC)
* can do various protocols incl. bittorrent
* The Guide has a catalog of tons of free feeds, organized by topic
* You can add feeds without the Guide
* Can handle subscriptions representing keyword search on sites like Youtube

So, as iTunes podcast is a kind of

Online video site business model.

[Silverlancer]

1. Get lots of venture capital, somehow.

2. Declare the site beta.

3. Allow people to upload videos as high as 18 megabits per second. [divx.com]

4. Wonder where all the venture capital went.

Someone is going to make money at this.

[Erris]

Eyeballs == Advertising $

You can slip the product placement in wherever you like, just like they do now. You can put on banner ads, just like you do now. All of the conventional forms of advertising work. The biggest difference is that bandwith is much much cheaper than broadcast and physical media. If you P2P it out, your cost will be that much lower. If that does not add up to profit, I'm not sure what will.

Maybe no one is making money

[philpalm]

Because now security cameras are being broadcast over the internet so that people can see that their home are still safe and sound. Not everything involves money, peace of mind: priceless.

Re:

[ImaLamer]

5. ???

6. Profit

(oh wait)

You gotta see Tourette's Guy!

[brxndxn]

OMG.. someone please post the Tourette's Guy videos!

"I hope this is the Puff Daddy version and not that Sting piece of SHIT!!!..." pause.. "AWWW FUCK!!!"

Re:

[deftcoder]

"Yes, I bought your Colgate toothpaste, the one with tartar control, and it made me feel... LIKE A PIECE OF SHIT!"

R.I.P. Tourettes Guy

Broadband

[Mike610544]

It would be interesting to see how much of this is due to the (partial?) death of dial-up internet access. Is the rate of increase consistent with dialup->DSL/cable conversions? Even within the "broadband" realm, I'm much more likely to click a video link now that my DSL is 3 Mb compared to when it was 760Kb.

Upload vs. Download stats

[sufijazz]

While Comcast's recent actions [slashdot.org] threaten to stifle innovation [techdirt.com] in this space, Netflix and Amazon Unbox will eventually win. Not to mention YouTube. What is interesting is that related industries such as video search engines [blinkx.com] and content producers like this [nytimes.com] will flourish.

I'd like to see some statistics on how many people upload videos vs. how many download/watch them.

Re:

[trawg]

Surely youtube.com is only "winning" because people are putting up copyrighted content faster than the copyright owners can file DMCA requests to have it taken down?

I might be alone here, but I watch jack shit on youtube that's not someone else's copyrighted content that someone else has uploaded (except for the extremely rare uploaded home video of some idiot hurting themselves, which probably accounts for less than 2% of my youtube time).

Re:

[u-235-sentinel]

While Comcast's recent actions threaten to stifle innovation in this space, Netflix and Amazon Unbox will eventually win. Not to mention YouTube. What is interesting is that related industries such as video search engines and content producers like this will flourish.

I'd like to see some statistics on how many people upload videos vs. how many download/watch them.

I appreciate someone recognizing how serious this is becoming. While not a problem such as world hunger or wars, it's not like this is a non issu

Like the study that showed men like hot women...

[GigaHurtsMyRobot]

In other equally shocking news... The majority of online videos are pornography, fake web cam advertisements for pornography, and videos of people getting hit in the balls. The sky is still blue, and so are my balls.

This was news, several years ago...

[adona1]

At what point will people stop reporting that "more people are doing X and Y on the internet"? Yes, lots of people do things on the internet. It will grow as more people get online and connections get faster. It isn't really very interesting.

Looking at websites? Check.
Downloading music? Check.
Social networks online? Check.
Watching videos? Check.

Can we just presume that more people are doing whatever next comes along, and not keep reporting on it?

Welcome to Slashdot

[zanaxagoras]

At what point will people stop reporting that "more people are doing X and Y on the internet"?

If you actually have to ask that question, I have to then question why you read Slashdot, let alone post to it.

Re:

[adona1]

Touche. However, most of the people on Slashdot would already know this stuff, seeing as we tend to be doing this stuff long before it gets reported in computer magazines. Hence, posting the stories here is somewhat obvious, akin to telling a stab victim that he might die if he doesn't get medical attention :)

Greatest fun is ahead of us

[suv4x4]

Only recently have content-producing companies, and TV channels started to offer their video content on-line (sometimes for free).

Only weeks ago was Flash with MPEG4+AAC beta announced. And only days ago was Silverlight 1.0 with WMV support announced.

I expect in the next 5 years we'll see a huge surge in online video as video content producers scramble to take a foot in this brand new market.

And I actually expect online video will outdo bittorrent traffic, since a large part of bittorent traffic now is actually various TV series and movies, things that will be legally available for streaming in the near future.

The big question mark is: what do ISP-s do about it. They can filter and slow down bittorrent traffic since the popular opinion is it consists mostly of illegal content (and it's mostly, though not entirely correct). They'll have a quite unique problem doing so with streaming media (and you can wrap streaming in HTTP traffic on port 80 too) when official distributors start streaming DVD or HD quality content as the rule, rather than the exception.

Re:

[jibjibjib]

The obvious solution for ISPs is a transparent caching proxy, so they only need to transfer the videos over their upstream connection once.

ISP-level BitTorrent proxy

[harmonica]

Some BitTorrent caching at the ISP level is already taking place: http://bramcohen.livejournal.com/29886.html [livejournal.com] ("Third"...)

Yes, but....

[Z0mb1eman]

...these videos probably amount for 90% of that time:

http://www.clutterme.com/internetpeople [clutterme.com]

(not really a shameless plug since that page has nothing to do with my site)

75

[sh3l1]

almost 75 percent of U.S. Internet users watched videos online, up from 71.4 percent in March

71.4% is almost 75% this article shows very little change