×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube Coming Soon To Cellphones

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the finally-something-useful dept.

The Internet 78

Krishna Dagli writes to mention a short New York Times article about a deal between Verizon and Google. YouTube will be coming to Verizon's VCast service. There's lots of catches: It's a $15/month fee, and you don't gain access to all of the content YouTube has to offer. Just the same, the article makes Google out to be thinking along these lines; YouTube may start showing up in many different places. From the article: "'Everybody carries a phone with them, but they may not have a computer,' said Steve Chen, chief technology officer and a co-founder of YouTube. People can 'take the phone out of their pocket while waiting for the bus' and watch a video, he added. Verizon Wireless and YouTube said the service would be available early next month. The companies would not discuss the financial terms of their deal but said Verizon would have the exclusive rights to distribute YouTube videos on mobile phones 'for a limited period of time.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

78 comments

Verizon and Google ... (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17015822)

what will creep out of such a relation ???

CC.

Article should read: Verizon To Censor YouTube (1)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 7 years ago | (#17016316)

Gizmodo [gizmodo.com] are correctly reporting the same story, but from the angle that your content is being sensored and you are paying for it.

FTA:

Verizon To Censor YouTube For Cellphones

Watching YouTube videos on your Verizon Wireless cellphone will cost $15 per month, according to the New York Times. The deal is expected to be officially announced later today and launch next month but it's important to note that you won't be paying $15 per month for the YouTube you know and love. Nope, the video service will be a part of V Cast, Verizon's multimedia hub, and won't be a replication of the content you get on the actual YouTube Web site. The videos you'll actually be able to see are ones that have been "selected and approved by the companies...that [have] the broadest appeal and highest entertainment value." Um, isn't that the very definition of censorship? And what are the odds that some of the selected videos you'll see are ads for soap?

I would think that the massive popularity of YouTube can be attributed to videos that might not exactly meets Verizon's "editorial and taste" guidelines. Translation: don't expect too many video saying, "Verizon Sucks!"

Both Google, the new owners of YouTube, and Verizon are just thrilled to be offering us an anemic version of the popular video sharing Web site. But fear not, non-Verizon Wireless users: YouTube will only remain exclusive to Verizon for a "limited period of time."

So, who's willing to pay $15 per month for a censored, anemic version of YouTube that you can enjoy on a 1-inch screen? - Nicholas Deleon

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/cellphones/verizon- to-censor-youtube-for-cellphones-217565.php [gizmodo.com]

Re:Article should read: Verizon To Censor YouTube (1)

jamar0303 (896820) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017198)

Suddenly all hope is lost- they'll NEVER approve of all the Japanese content that is the reason I visit YouTube. At least there won't be any AMVs featured, though.

Re:Article should read: Verizon To Censor YouTube (1)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017538)

Damn I got excited when I heard I could get youtube on my cell, I've got Verizon too... I'd be more then happy to pay $15 a month, but not if it's only going to be pre-approved content... forget that.

Re:Verizon and Google ... (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017992)

what will creep out of such a relation ???

An angel with devil's horns and a taste for not being evil while still overcharging for the service?

Does this mean... (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#17015836)

...that Verizon may also be implicated in any potential copyright infringement litigation over videos on YouTube? Or will the deal be structured so that Google shields Verizon in case that occurs? More importantly, is this a way for Google to ensure it's own little bit of "net neutrality," by making Verizon a partner?

Re:Does this mean... (1)

Josh Lindenmuth (1029922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17015904)

It's unlikely that Verizon would be implicated in copyright infringement lawsuits, they are just a carrier and probably won't be doing any the filtering of the videos (just as your ISP and your computer manufacturer would not be liable for content you viewed at home in the event of copyright infringement litigation against YouTube).

I'm curious to see how YouTube/Google will limit the number of videos available. Will they hand edit the top videos to ensure no copyrighted material is available (in which case the service probably wouldn't be popular), or just post all videos under a certain duration or above a certain view count threshhold.

Re:Does this mean... (1)

diersing (679767) | more than 7 years ago | (#17016096)

Why go through all the effort of filtering yourself?, just wait for the cease and desist orders to come.

Re:Does this mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17016148)

I believe that the manufacturer of Eyes should be responsible for seeing copyrighted material and those manufacturers should be responsible for any damages that their clients see. Just as pen manufactures (we'll printing machines today) should be held liable for stupdm draconian, oppresive laws that their devices produce.

Re:Does this mean... (2, Insightful)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 7 years ago | (#17016240)

>>> "they are just a carrier and probably won't be doing any the filtering of the videos "

That is not how I read it. They appear to be charging the consumer $15 a month for a heavily 'filtered internet'. If Verizon wish to remain free from infringement they should be a 'common carrier' and should not be providing restricted content. IANAL, but it appears that if they restrict some content, they are liable for all the content that gets through.

Why don't they just offer 'common carrier' data service to the Internet? Their self imposed restrictions will hurt them in the long run.

For once, this is competent marketing (2, Funny)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17015840)

And the logical next step would be to offer discounts to people submitting more stupid videos shot with their cellphones.

Re:For once, this is competent marketing (1)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 7 years ago | (#17016118)

It could revolutionize the breaking news market. Anywhere there's cell service, we could have breaking news uploaded to YouTube. Can you imagine, a sort of cluster, of cell phone users, uploading their perspective of a major news story? Why trust CNN, when you can get it from Sally and Joe Sixpack with a phone?

Vcast (2, Informative)

TrippTDF (513419) | more than 7 years ago | (#17015874)

I had this service for my phone about 18 months ago, and canceled it after a month... most videos took forever to start playing. In half an hour, you could maybe watch three or four 2 minute clips. The quality was OK for the phone, but all in all it was not the best viewing experience. Unless they have changed a lot in the last 18 months, I'm willing to bet this is going to be a big flop.

I love Google, but it seems that Youtube is becoming a monkey on their back- they paid a ton of money for it, and now they don't know what to do with it. Cell phones? Not the type of thinking I'm used to seeing with Google, but I'll hold off on a final judgment when I see it.

EVDO (3, Informative)

fistfullast33l (819270) | more than 7 years ago | (#17016132)

The big question is whether or not you were in an EVDO area. If you were, and your phone had it enabled, then Verizon definitely would have a problem. If you weren't or your phone didn't support it, then you probably would notice a difference between then and now. I just bought a KRZR (stupid name, nice phone) for my upgrade and I got a month of the VCAST music service for free. You can definitely notice a difference between EVDO and non-EVDO.

Re:Vcast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17016866)

If you're within the EV network and getting good reception it takes only a few seconds to buffer. I get a strong signal from my home; takes about 10 to 20 seconds to connect to the vcast gateway. Browsing the videos is fast. I assume the list of content has been downloaded to the handset up front. Once selecting the video, it takes about 5 to 10 seconds to buffer and then plays just fine. I've had a few occasions where the video would just sit on buffering and nothing would happen. In those cases, I've cancelled and selected it again and it loads right up instantly.

On the other hand I've been in locations where there is almost no EV signal. In those cases, it's mostly impossible to watch anything.

Re:Vcast (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 7 years ago | (#17020240)

Just out of curiosity, how in the hell could you justify paying $15/mo for this service?

Thats the thing that gets me...I KNOW this type of data transfer does not cost the companies anywhere near this much, yet they continue to keep raising the prices of new services that are still just data being streamed. It is absofuckinglutley ridiculous. And don't even get me started on the fact that SMS costs more than voice chat.

Funny you ask... (1)

Vr6dub (813447) | more than 7 years ago | (#17021392)

I subscribe to VCAST, I really enjoy the Comedy Central clips they have on there (Daily Show, Colbert, South Park). I can not view videos if I am not in an EVDO area. That said, a 3-4 minute video buffers and starts playing within 5 seconds or so. Video qualtiy appears to be slightly below NTSC when viewed on such a small screen. The $15 may not be worth it to some but it has been for me. News updates from the major networks, weather reports, sports updates (fox, espn, and some others), and they also have a comedy channel full of great clips. The VCAST service also allows me to connect my cell phone to my laptop and achieve at least dial up speeds for free. You have to pony up for the "high-speed" service though.

nickle and diming (2, Interesting)

Speare (84249) | more than 7 years ago | (#17015886)

Verizon?

If they routinely break phone features like user-mp3 so they can charge money for crappy ringtones, what kind of charge would there be for downloading a whole video? When I got my phone last year, even the little "wallpaper" background images were for-pay, and if you switched from image A to image B to image A, you'd have to buy image A twice! Who in their right minds would pay-per-view for 92x64 bitmaps?

Re:nickle and diming (1)

plover (150551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17016452)

Who in their right minds would pay-per-view for 92x64 bitmaps?

Your question shows a lack of understanding of their customer base. With their insulting crippling of phones and fear-based advertising Verizon continually aims for the bottom 50% of the population, and that's going to include an awful lot of people not in their "right minds".

You can't even fault them for it -- even idiots end up with money that they want to spend, and Verizon is simply there to collect it. It's capitalism in action.

Re:nickle and diming (1)

binarybum (468664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17016586)

I will pay whatever it takes to watch stupid cat tricks on my cellphone! I will allow verizon to make direct withdrawals from my savings account ad libum if they allow me to take screenshots from stupid cat trick videos and make them into wallpapers for my cell phone.

Re:nickle and diming (1)

mnmn (145599) | more than 7 years ago | (#17021104)

Who in their right minds would pay-per-view for 92x64 bitmaps? Teenage girls who have just been handed a cellphone by their fathers who need to keep a check on them. Do you know how many teenage girls rack up $300 or more in the first month of their cellphone ownership? If I owned a phone company, I would want to milk out this demographic as well.

Ignorance is funny (1)

Vr6dub (813447) | more than 7 years ago | (#17021974)

I'll concede that they pulled a switch on me with my "mp3" phone (it actually only plays WMA's) but they still allow me to set my own songs as ring tones. As far as cost goes, if you factor the VCAST cost over the course of a month of $15 that makes it about .000005787 cents per second. If the video takes 30 seconds to download that comes to about .0001736 cents for the video.

I know this is some real fuzzy math. I just think it is humorous that people are so quick to shoot something down when they don't have all the facts. About the wallpaper, put your own damn picture on there that you took with the phone. If that isn't kosher then transfer an appropriate picture from you computer on to a micro SD card and load it up that way. Shoot, pictures are for noobs anyway, I have a video shot with my home video camera loaded as my background wallpaper.

Why Verizon, Why? (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 7 years ago | (#17015914)

For a company who's motto is "Don't be evil.", it seems strange that they would go with the most evil cell phone company around (and believe me, the competition was fierce). I know several people up in the Northern Virginia area with Verizon and they all hate it, but due to exclusive licensing agreements Verizon is the only one that works on the Metro. If someone else got in there they would switch in an instant. The Verizon reps know this too, they treat you like dirt, have the worst phones, and still manage to be one of the most expensive options available.

Re:Why Verizon, Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17016706)

Jerks who use their cell phone on a metro deserve the worst possible service/company possible. Verizon is too good for these rude morons.

The day cell phone service is turned on in the NYC subways is the day I order the strongest possible jammer I can fit in my coat pocket.

Re:Why Verizon, Why? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 7 years ago | (#17028584)

umm the strongest possible LEGAL jammer is at exactly Zero Point Zero Zero Zero watts output (unless you have access to the papers and a TLA org)

besides even if it was remotely legal to jam cell phones worst case you get put in jail for having it on during public transit worst case well lets jsut say you wouldn't have to have cuban cigars exported for you to have them.

Old news... (1)

GoatSucker (781403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17015922)

Sorry Verizon, http://tinytube.net/ [tinytube.net] beat you to it. And it's free.

I don't think... (1)

SgtKeeling (717065) | more than 7 years ago | (#17016134)

this really going to be that popular. I mean, look at this http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6137236.html [zdnet.com] story from last week, talking about how little people actually use their video ipods for video. I can't imagine cell phones being much different.

Re:I don't think... (1)

Essef (12025) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017312)

I've got an Nokia E61 with WiFi and a 2GB MiniSD card.
With a brilliant 320x240 screen and RealPlayer, viewing
mini videos is a treat.
I especially love TinyTube.net for when I'm bored and in a WiFi hotspot.

Now, if only someone will make a generic mash-up like YouTube or Google video
that will transcode CNN, BBC etc. in the same way TinyTube does...

I've disabled 3G on my sim altogether. Don't need it, won't pay for it.

Re:I don't think... (1)

jamar0303 (896820) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018012)

Well, make the phone screens bigger. Look at Japan- phones with 3-inch screens like the Sony Ericsson SO903i [nttdocomo.co.jp] are coming out (on a side note- this phone is certainly what the US should have got as a Walkman phone instead of that small thing with not even a 2-inch screen). Certainly better than a lot of what the US has to offer. It would actually be practical to watch TV on a phone with a 3-inch screen (and for pocketability, the Japanese don't complain, so you shouldn't either- big screen equals big phone no matter how you work it). I watch recorded TV shows on my phone because I regularly take bus rides of over an hour- my laptop battery life is crap because it's 3 years old so all I do with it is use it as a "save state" of my work in progress and I don't own an iPod of any sort, nor do I own any sort of standalone device for playing video.

copyright? (2, Interesting)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17015962)

With Verizon now charging users to access content contained on YouTube, doesn't that open the door even wider regarding charges of copyright infringement? Now that money is being exchanged for the service, it seems that copyright owners could now go after Verizon (and Google) for selling copyrighted material that isn't theirs to sell.

Re:copyright? (1)

Vr6dub (813447) | more than 7 years ago | (#17022568)

If it's like the rest of their VCAST service it won't be the YouTube you're familiar with. They will be screened videos that they have deemed copyright-free and probably won't allow you to search YouTube's site.

This sounds like fun (3, Funny)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 7 years ago | (#17015994)

The idea of watching Star Wars kid, that nervous sports reporter and bored skateboarding teenagers on my PHONE is surely too good to resist.

lonelygirl15 with me on the go! (1)

blankoboy (719577) | more than 7 years ago | (#17016020)

Do I really need to see lonelygirl15 and friends on my daily train commute? Oh wait, that's what I carry my notebook around with me for (work? bah!). Now I will be able to watch lonelygirl on my lap and Renetto in my hand. More tubes for me!

Ugh. (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17016374)

Just when normal mobile phone ringtones and conversations on the bus couldn't get any more obnoxious. I tellya what, the first fool to start up Brookers Brodack on his phone on my way to work is getting thrown right through the breakaway fire-exit window.

Fad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17016216)

This is what happens with fads. It would be like giving yourself a mohawk. It'd be cool for about a day, but then you have to live with it for a while.

Finally the answer (1)

FFFFHALTFFFF (996601) | more than 7 years ago | (#17016228)

When Google paid for YouTube, the main question was the price vs "how to earn money with YouTube". This is a great move from Google, because they are able to get profits with YouTube and they are launching a new kind of service, with a giant. Congratulations google staff!

Why it will *never* be a success (1)

CSLarsen (961164) | more than 7 years ago | (#17016344)

Reason 1:
It's a $15/month fee
This alone is enough for doomed failure. Some bonus reasons:
and you don't gain access to all of the content
Doesn't sound good. I want the same content I get on my PC. Whatever the mobile industry tells you, video streaming is too darn slow to start up (not to mention the numerous steps you usually have to go through to even get to the video in the first place). I will never use such a service until:
  • It's free (paying for just being "on the air" is expensive enough)
  • I can start streaming videos within 5 secs
  • I can send links to videos to my friends in e.g. SMSes.
I've talked with some people in the industry, and many of the suits seem to believe that if they can just get those kidz start using their crappy mp3/video/jambalaia/whatever-service they will all earn truckloads of bucks faster than you can spell GREED.

Re:Why it will *never* be a success (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17017810)

1.) Unless they are charging an additional $15, VCAST is already $15 a month. That includes unlimited data usage and does not use your voice minutes. It's still a bit steap, but this also includes unlimited usage of wireless web. The service is very fast, and so far I've been very happy with it.

2.) Videos do start streaming in 5 seconds if you are getting a good signal from the EV network.

3.) Not being able to text a link to someone else is a feature that I also find lacking. There have been plenty of times where I've seen something that I've wanted to send to a friend. Hopefully this will change with the addition of the youtube content. VCAST doesn't currently have a huge amount of videos. They are changed out every couple of days so there isn't a lot of content that you need to riffle through. So not being able to send a link hasn't been a big issue because it's easy to just say check out such and such category.

What? (2, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#17016352)

'Everybody carries a phone with them


*checks his pockets* Sorry, don't seem to have a phone on me. Oh that's right, now I remember, I DON'T HAVE A CELL PHONE MORON!

Why is it that people assume everyone has every worthless gadget out there? I know it's hard to believe but there are those of us who don't have a cell phone, don't need a cell phone and don't want a cell phone.

Just like there are those of us who don't have that insecure Flash product installed on our computers, don't need to have Flash installed and don't want to have Flash installed.

Technology is great and all but this nonsense that people should always have the latest and greatest crap is one of the leading causes for our negative savings rate [bea.gov] .

Re:What? (1)

God'sDuck (837829) | more than 7 years ago | (#17016674)

Technology is great and all but this nonsense that people should always have the latest and greatest crap is one of the leading causes for our negative savings rate.
Erm...I understand not *wanting* a cell -- but I'd hardly call the technology "latest and greatest", seeing as it's over 20 years old, and has been ubiquitous since the late nineties (2+ *billion* in service at the moment). They're only the "latest and greatest" in the sense of the original Nintendo, or the second coming of flannel.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17017930)

<i>Just like there are those of us who don't have that insecure Flash product installed on our computers, don't need to have Flash installed and don't want to have Flash installed.</i>

Are you assuming that I have a computer?  How dare you!  Not everyone has a computer and I for one can't stand it when I read posts that imply that I have one of these new fangled computer things that Mr Babbage seems to think will become so popular.  I'm creating this message on an Etch-A-Sketch and I see no reason to spend money on a TRS-80 or whatever the latest model is these days just because fashion dictates.

Flash is insecure?  I doubt it, I just think he's a bit deluded that he thinks he only has 14 hours to save the Earth.

Re:What? (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17019530)

*checks his power outlets* Sorry, don't have electricity in my house. Oh that's right, now I remember, I DON'T HAVE ELECTRICITY MORON!

Why is it that people assume everyone has every worthless utility out there? I know it's hard to believe but there are those of us who don't have electricity, don't need electricity and don't want electricity.

Technology is great and all but this nonsense that people should always have the latest and greatest crap is one of the leading causes for out negative savings rate.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17022124)

Why is it that every other pretentious, pompous moron out there feels that it is his duty to inform the world that he is so "cool" and "original" that he doesn't want to or need to own a mobile phone? Nobody is awed by your lack of desire to own one. Get over it. And no, a mobile phone can hardly be characterized as the latest and greatest of technology. It is actually a device which everybody carries in the colloquial sense of the word.

Took the words out of my mouth (1)

Vr6dub (813447) | more than 7 years ago | (#17022848)

Thank you. I was thinking the same thing. "Look at me, I'm so leet I don't need a cell phone. I'm, like, totally fighting the establishment, man" What a tool. On a side note, I just recently got a cell phone in the last year. It has come in handy on more than one occasion and guess what, when I don't want to talk with people I *gasp* turn the phone off. It's like magic.

fo' real (1)

Danzigism (881294) | more than 7 years ago | (#17016396)

i mean, this does sound like a cool idea and all, but fuck paying $15 a month.. Google needs to do what it does really well, and that is to make their other services compatible with PDA Phones and Smartphone web browsers.. they did a great job with my personalized homepage, and gmail.. they should work on their own Video Search engine next in my opinion.. i use WiFi for any type of internet connectivity on my PDA phone.. not any of verizon's crappy wireless broadband services that aren't even offered in my area yet.. i can stream videos perfectly fine using windows media player for WM5.. i'm sure Google could easily get their player to cooperate.. Verizon needs to offer unlimited text messages to any one, not just to the people who are "IN", before they offer this YouTube service which will probably suck a lot of ass, and won't be worth the money..

Yawn (2, Interesting)

tacokill (531275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17016468)

So, for $15, I get to stream amateur videos to my cell phone?

How about, instead, I stream my own videos to myself using Orb [orb.com] and along with that, I can hit some online TV broadcasts, some internet radio, and prolly my mp3 collection (haven't tried that yet). And oh yea, one last thing: it's $0.

But yea, this Verizon/Youtube thing is cool too.

Re:Yawn (1)

ahoehn (301327) | more than 7 years ago | (#17020104)

Orb seems to be too good to be true for me. I just got a new phone with EVDO and installed ORB on my home PC, thinking there must be some catch.

I didn't see much use for it right away. Then, a week or so later, I was on my way home, sitting in an airport with EVDO coverage with an hour to kill. I thought to myself, hey, I left my computer running ORB, as well as uTorrent with automatic RSS downloading. I spent the next hour happily watching the latest episodes of the Daily Show and Colbert report on my phone. No hiccups, no problems, just a great, free service.

I admit, the low'ish quality small picture wouldn't work so well for movies and the like, but for largely audio-driven shows like the Colbert Report and Daily Show, it's just fine. Of course the legality of downloading tv shows could be questioned, but it's not something that keeps me awake at night.

Like you said, $15 a month for access to LoneyGirl15, or Free access to my entire move and mp3 collection as well as streaming television? It's quite the decision.

Re:Yawn (1)

tacokill (531275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17032282)

Of course the legality of downloading tv shows could be questioned, but it's not something that keeps me awake at night.

Since you are streaming it to yourself, I would be surprised if there are any copyright implications with respect to Orb. uTorrent might be a different story but as far as Orb goes, it's just software that transcodes and streams and there isn't anything in the laws that prevents one from transcoding and streaming their own videos to yourself.

This will work as well as Netscape's paid browser (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17016580)

This will probably work as well as Netscape's paid browser. Remember, part of what makes YouTube attractive is that it's "free" and people don't seem to mind the many ads served on each page. (Ditto with Google.) Mess with the model and the next best video serving site will step up; the world doesn't need YouTube.

Big Whoop (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017042)

Already got it in an interface that is far more comfortable to use.

Boost mobile phone (yo!) hacked blackberry 7520 to work on boost mobile with the sim from the first phone, Nokia 770 and some software installed.

I have unlimited net access 24/7 for $0.35 a day I can view most video content (dont because most is crap) plus get a real interface for web surfing, email, etc that wont cripple my thumbs or make me blind looking at a tiny 1.5 inch screen with low res.

176x144 cell phone video resolution (1)

eltoyoboyo (750015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017218)

This article How do I put YouTube Files on my Moto Razr? [group29.com] shows how to get them on one type of phone. Following the instructions, yeah I can view the videos. But really, how great is that? On the Motorola RAZR, the movies are 176x144 3GP files. Follow some of the steps in the article to turn the flash file from YouTube into a 176x144 video. The videos on YouTube are already lower res to conserve bandwidth. ESPN already made a similar play with their ill-fated Sports Heaven [wikipedia.org] promotion. I took a YouTube snapshot of a CBS college basketball broadcast clip onto a RAZR and I cannot even see the ball, nor read the graphic scoreboard.

Re:176x144 cell phone video resolution (1)

fupeg (653970) | more than 7 years ago | (#17023158)

One of the things that YouTube could start doing is making a 3GP encoded version of the videos that are uploaded to it, along with the Flash version they already make. This should be noticeably higher quality than a video that was encoded to Flash first then to 3GP. Alternatively, they could make this "from source" encoding of the videos picked by Verizon, assuming they keep the original source around. Either way, this would seem like a value-add to Verizon, making the deal a lot more valuable to them.

Moo (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017270)

Everybody carries a phone with them, but they may not have a computer

/me cries. It's not that he is ignorant. It's that it got posted on slashdot.

For those who skipped Computer Science, a "computer" in the CS world, is something that has input, uses input to process something, and output. A cell phone is a computer, albeit not a PC. A PC is the "computer" we all know and use. A cell phone is a specialized computer.

It is not amazing that the cell phone can get video from youtube, that has always been possible. That it is provided as a service and there is guaranteed bandwith for it, however, is something of note. Not technological as much as the nerd factor.

Re:Moo (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17021694)

and there is guaranteed bandwith for it

Quote: "A Cell Phone company who claims to be the best, who have the least amount of dropped calls, (because they wont drop a call, they would rather have you sit through static and have to pay). who likes to rip of customers by telling them one thing and doing another. ..."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ver izon [urbandictionary.com]

CC.

Are we talking mobiles or yuppie bricks (1)

webbod (1032868) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017470)

This is all lost on me, I watch live tv on my phone, it's got a web browser and java never had any problems with youtube - what kind of phones do you guys have that you'd need a special walled garden to access youtube and other sites ? I've had video on my mobile for years - I use it to upload clips from hockey games to youtube and photos straight into flickr - I thought everybody could do that (?)

Re:Are we talking mobiles or yuppie bricks (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018116)

You must have Verizon. You see, Verizon has sandboxed all of their phones - they can because they use a backwater standard that prevents anyone from bringing in a non-approved device to their network. All phones with advanced functionality are hobbled before they hit the streets. You get what you pay for. That's not wisdom, it's a slogan - on Verizon, you only get what you have paid for, and you must pay for it each time you want it. That's one reason I'm not switching to Verizon when I break free of US Cellular (who is just as bad) in two months.

It's really no coincidence that the voice of Verizon is also the voice of Darth Vader.

Correction (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018176)

You must not have Verizon. Sorry 'bout that. My rant made little sense to begin with. It makes no sense with the "not" missing. *shrug* serves me right for not hitting preview.

Pfffft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17018482)

LOL! Another of Verizon's overpriced services I won't
be paying for. A decent mobile browser would be able to
surf to YouTube's site.

YouTube + Verizon = Peril (1)

inviolet (797804) | more than 7 years ago | (#17019042)

This is perilous. Our society has not yet resolved the problem of the internet's long memory. Most of our custom is built upon the now-obsolete idea that memory does not last long or spread very far. And so the birth of the Information Age has brought with it the personal catastrophes such as "Dog S*** Girl" and "Shemale Vids Guy" and that asshat Jason Fortuny. These are all examples of normal, limited outbreaks of personal information that turned into unjustified disasters for the affected persons, simply because the internet's memory is fast, broad, and permanent.

If everyone has a cellphone, and most cellphones have videocameras, and most of those videocameras are now linked up to YouTube, we'll see this memory problem greatly multiplied.

Of course that might be the antidote: put so much information out there about so many people, that it will no longer matter. It'll be a poor man's Friends of Privacy [ieee.org] , which would be a Good Thing probably.

But I don't want to be one of the forerunners, having my personal foibles instantly broadcast all round the world, and googlable by every future employer, boyfriend, girlfriend, etc. This unholy marriage between YouTube and Verizon is fraught with peril.

"Let me go back and face the peril!"
"No, it's too perilous!"

Here's how this will work (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 7 years ago | (#17019234)

Having worked in the cellular industry (or is it wireless device industry now?), I am willing to take a guess at what you will really "get" for this monthly fee.

You pay 15 dollars a month to gain access to a mobile site with the YouTube logo on it. Verizon will give you streaming access to video clips for upcoming movie releases, music videos (but only the first minute), and commercials for television shows.

Any clip you want to keep (for some asinine reason), will cost and additional 2.50.

All these people making money off of your content! (1)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 7 years ago | (#17019558)

Doesn't anyone find it ironic that YouTube has made billions off of the backs of all the free content basically donated to them to use on their site? What if the content creators/uploaders got a cut of that action? What if you uploaded content to YouTube that was DRM protected and in order to view it you had to pay the content creator?

I just looked up how to make my own DRM WMV files. You know what? You have to pay a third party if you want to make your own DRM content.

These DRM people have you coming and going. You have to pay if you wanto to view content, and, if you want to make your own DRM protected content, you have to pay someone for that, too!

This isn't news - Kinoma/PDA = YouTube w/ no fee (1)

n6gn (851311) | more than 7 years ago | (#17023412)

I've been watching YouTube on a Treo 700P for weeks using Kinoma with Sprint and there's no content filtering or billing. Why is this suddenly news?

This is just the first wave... (1)

braxton_zannel (1033494) | more than 7 years ago | (#17039148)

And the first wave is typically underwhelming. Look at video on the Internet - there were many companies developing web applications similar to Youtube back in the dot-bomb era: DEN, Popcast, etc. My team developed one for Sony that was never deployed, but would have likely failed anyway.*sigh* But the "ecosystem" just wasn't ready: Most of the population didn't have the broadband access necessary for a good experience. To make matters worse, a lot of questionable business models were applied to this underdeveloped ecosystem. I believe video on mobile will be a phenomenon in the near future, but will only happen when the ecosystem reaches a critical point where:
1. A significant percentage (>20%) of consumers have EVDO/HSDPA or better bandwidth and are using decent mobile devices (like the Nokia N series)
2. A service emerges that builds a bridge between the Internet and mobile devices that is suitable for mass adoption:
- A free service (ad supported like Youtube on the web)
- That offers automated transcoding of content for mobile users
- And solves distribution and discovery challenges that are specific to the mobile space.

The Gootube/Verizon deal is not the answer. Guess what I'm spending all my time on these days?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...