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!

iPod To Eventually Hold All the Video In the World?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the one-miiiiillion-gigabtyes dept.


An anonymous reader writes "A senior Google exec has been talking up the prospect of iPods that can hold all the world's media due to the plummeting price of storage and its increasing volume-to-size ratio. Google's VP of European operations, Nikesh Arora, predicts that in as little as just over a decade's time, iPods will be capable of storing 'any video ever produced.'" From the article: "Arora believes, mobile is likely to follow the same path. 'Mobile is not going to be a different thing,' he added — and if the mobile industry is to capitalize on the growth of content, it would be wise to ape the development of the internet. He said: 'The mobile industry has to go through the same phases the internet has gone through... Mobile will have the same learning curve. It would be somewhat foolish to leapfrog the stages the internet went through.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Everybody together now: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17017636)

The iPod is for porn!

Re:Everybody together now: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17018238)

Don't encourage the parent poster.

Backwards (2, Insightful)

Trails (629752) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017642)

increasing volume-to-size ratio.

Something in there isn't right. I think this is meant to be either

decreasing volume-to-size ratio.


increasing size-to-volume ratio.

Re:Backwards (3, Insightful)

lordb42 (1032890) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018130)

It is correct as long as the ratio is storage volume / physical size. It is a bad choice of terms since it could also mean physical volume / storage size.

Re:Backwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17018228)

Or as volume is synonymous with size, a better size-to-size ratio.

Re:Backwards (2, Funny)

smitty97 (995791) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018632)

increasing volume-to-size ratio.

the phrase is correct, theyre making them louder again.

Apple and the Google (4, Funny)

spellraiser (764337) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017644)

Apple: Gee, Google, what are we going to do tonight?

The Google: The same thing we do every night, Apple ... Try to hold ALL THE VIDEO IN THE WORLD!

Re:Apple and the Google (4, Funny)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018208)

Somehow that mental image lends itself more to Microsoft, don't you think?

Ballmer: Narf! Poit!

Everyone having every video? (2, Insightful)

ryanov (193048) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017648)

But what a stupid idea. Why have millions of copies of everything when theoretically networks will allow there to be a few replicated copies? Seems a pointless waste of disk space to me.

Besides, there will be many more videos ever produced by that time than there are now... I doubt technology will keep pace with the rolling-themselves-off-a-cliff-in-a-shopping-car-v ideo crowd.

Re:Everyone having every video? (2, Interesting)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017796)

It's not so far fetched - and think of the bandwidth savings. Bandwidth will go to new content only, and our "video past" can be mass produced. If storage of that magnitude becomes real, it will revolutionize more than just the mobile video market. Datacenters could possibly look as different as computers from the 1960s do, compared to today's PCs.

Re:Everyone having every video? (1)

sterno (16320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018006)

Well the reality is that while your IPod might be able to hold all the video in the world you still need some insanely fat pipe to download all of the world's video from. Today I can go to the Itunes store and download a video, but it takes like 20-30 minutes to get it. Going to take an awfully long time to fill my ipod at that rate.

Right now I have the 60GB Video IPod and I do not fill it. The limitations imposed on me are not storage capacity, but rather bandwidth and time. I'd love to put every video I own on it, and clearly I'd exceed the capacity if I did, but the reality is even on my Mac Pro it takes me 40 minutes to rip a DVD (which I guess technically I'm not supposed to be able to do anyhow). It's a huge hassle.

Until I can get video onto an ipod as readily as I can get music onto an ipod, the storage capacity isn't that critical.

Re:Everyone having every video? (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018044)

If the current mess wrt copyright goes on, local storage and local darknet mass duplication may very well become the predominant way to distribute media, as the more sensible approaches may find themselves being illegal and heavily monitored.

Re:Everyone having every video? (0)

inKubus (199753) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018120)

And I know that everyone here hates it, but the Microsoft Zune has wireless networking built in, thus allowing you access to unlimited video, right now. And all for a few dollars from Movielink and Cinemanow or free from the web.

This article is typical corporate exec boilerplate used to beef up name recognition. When they don't have anything better to say they spout stuff about how much growth there is in storage capacity. It's been going on for 20 years, duh.

What's REALLY interesting about this article is a Senior Google person mentioning their fellow Silicon Valley neighbors with $50+ BIL in cash, Apple Computer. The AppleGooTube, Gapple, Gooooople anybody chime in here at any time

Re:Everyone having every video? (1)

davidmcg (796487) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018590)

And I know that everyone here hates it, but the Microsoft Zune has wireless networking built in, thus allowing you access to unlimited video, right now. And all for a few dollars from Movielink and Cinemanow or free from the web.
Well Zune doen't support video sharing yet, and if it did then it'd probably be with the awful 3 plays or 3 days restriction. So basically the Zune is no advantage here, also with no 80GB model then it can store less than the top iPod.
What's REALLY interesting about this article is a Senior Google person mentioning their fellow Silicon Valley neighbors with $50+ BIL in cash, Apple Computer. The AppleGooTube, Gapple, Gooooople anybody chime in here at any time
That's not news: Google CEO Dr. Eric Schmidt Joins Apple's Board of Directors [apple.com] (Aug 2006)

Oblig. (2, Funny)

Tmack (593755) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018192)

Finally! A place to store all my pr0n!!!
Seriously though, do they realize how many anime tentical rape videos are out there???


Re:Everyone having every video? (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018320)

But what a stupid idea. Why have millions of copies of everything when theoretically networks will allow there to be a few replicated copies? Seems a pointless waste of disk space to me.
Your idea sounds like a stupid waste of bandwidth to me. If an iPod can store every video ever, they can just image the thing at the factory to hold all videos and all songs. We are talking about a device specifically for playing videos and music, so using the hard disk for anything else would not be beneficial.

It already can! (2, Insightful)

aarku (151823) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017676)

....At 2x2 pixel resolution, 1 bit color, 1 fps... Where do you draw the line on video quality?

Re:It already can! (2, Funny)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017938)

No silly, with advances in carbon nanotubes, quantum computing, and encyption and compression schemes the 1-bit compression system is nearly available to everyone.

Re:It already can! (4, Funny)

mgblst (80109) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018464)

The compression scheme has been available for years. It is the decompression that has proved to be a little tricky.

Personal storage (3, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017694)

Personal storage is something we do now, because networking isn't cool enough. In ten years, it's entirely possible that networking will have increased to the point where the idea of keeping a local copy of ANYTHING will seem weird.

Personal Storage==Control (5, Insightful)

Alaren (682568) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018124)

Personal storage is something we do now, because networking isn't cool enough. In ten years, it's entirely possible that networking will have increased to the point where the idea of keeping a local copy of ANYTHING will seem weird.

Just because future networking could fulfill this prophecy doesn't mean it will. If I have a local copy, preferably one unencumbered by DRM, I don't have to worry about someone limiting my access to it. Pretty much every consumer agreement you sign has a clause basically stating "We reserve the right to change the terms of this agreement at any time." Although people are more willing, in the digital world, to "rent" rather than "own," ultimately there is (in Western culture at least) a very strong desire to own things "fee simple."

I'll always keep local copies, if only because I hate being beholden to the megacorps. Maybe I played too much Shadowrun back in the day, but there you have it.

Re:Personal storage (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018500)

It's also possible that, in the same ten years, the telco industry gets so greedy that it costs a buck just to check your email, so remote copies of anything outside your local intranet are completely infeasible. I hope not, but don't rule it out.

Re:Personal storage (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018666)

In ten years, it's entirely possible that networking will have increased to the point where the idea of keeping a local copy of ANYTHING will seem weird.
Surely we'll all want a local copy of our own personal flying car?

Re:Personal storage (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018864)

On a smaller scale I do something similar.
I and my brother both have a repository of our DVD collection on PC transcoded to MP4.
We also have a VPN bridge between our LANs. Our XBMC players can see movies on either LAN and play them as if local, though there is no actual copy at any TV. It's really cool, though somewhat limited. Sometimes we can see hiccups when watching a video remotely, Vs on the local LAN segment, but for the most part there is no issue. We could up the buffering level to deal with QOS levels, but then you'd have to wait 5 minutes for the movie to start.

What then? (2, Interesting)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017708)

Let's suppose you can in fact cram all the audio/video in the world onto an iPod? What then? How could you conceivably use all that information? There aren't enough hours in the day as it is, let alone to work your way through all that.

Personally, I don't see how this could be useful. The rapid expansion of memory capacity coupled with the falling price has led to bloat, whereby content is trying to expand to fill up these enormous memory spaces. To what end? Isn't there some kind of inverse Moore's Law for memory?

Re:What then? (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018154)

Well, it wasn't that long ago when people wanted to know what you would do with a pc in your house? or why you would need 6Mbits of bandwidth at home. Now, Google and other search engines are household words, and nearly everyone knows that you can find just about any information that you want, when you want, where ever you want using the Internet. Video/Audio is simply another form of information or information storage. Imagine you are sitting in a social setting (bar for some of us) and the conversation comes up to an argument about who a certain actor was that played some part in a movie: viola! you pull out your iPod or whatever device, type a few keywords and then watch that scene in the movie... argument settled.

While that may not be a truly universally useful example, there are many other such instances. Imagine missing a lecture in college and being able to pull it up on your iPod or other device; checking the latest from CNN; pulling down a video from the Library of Congress on global warming.... the list goes on.

To accomplish truly ubiquitous video usage, it will take both bandwidth, networks, and device storage. It will happen, sooner or later, as predicted on Star Trek IRRC. Think speaking computers and tri-corders?

Re:What then? (1)

thetroll123 (744259) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018194)

It's so you can access any constituent part you want, not so you can consume the whole lot. Heard of Google? Same sort of idea...

Re:What then? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018308)

Let's suppose you can in fact cram all the audio/video in the world onto an iPod? What then? How could you conceivably use all that information?

You don't, nor do I think the Google exec is seriously suggesting that you would have iPods in fact having all that media on them, even if they have the capacity, simply that with the current trends, storage capacity limits are very rapidly going to stop being a limiting factor for portable media devices for any practical purposes. His comments on the mobile industry aping the internet seems to be suggesting that similar process will affect the mobile industry more generally, perhaps extending the idea to wireless bandwidth as well as memory.

Though its really hard to tell what the actual point is, TFA isn't really all that coherent.

Re:What then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17018828)

Then you can buy vista on disk

Capacity. (4, Interesting)

commo1 (709770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017712)

What exactly is the estimated capacity for "all the world's [media]". This sounds like one heck of a bold statement when the numbers at the moment are unfathomable for holding a back catalogue of everything broadcast on network television and everything from blockbusters to B-movies from 1890 on, let alone net-generated videos, cable and alternative delivery methods.

Re:Capacity. (5, Interesting)

grnbrg (140964) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018538)

What exactly is the estimated capacity for "all the world's [media]".

Interesting question... IMDB [imdb.com] currently has records on:

  • 363,000 movies released theatrically. (Average of 2 hrs)
  • 367,000 TV episodes. (Average of 30 minutes)
  • 57,000 made for TV movies. (Average of 90 minutes)
  • 51,000 direct to video movies. (Average of 2 hours)
  • 5,300 mini seris. (Average of 3.5 hours)
Averages are wild-assed (but somewhat reasonable) guesses. Given that the MPEG2 encoding used by DVDs runs at about 25MB/minute or 1.5GB/hour this works out to about 2,000 terabytes for all current known video.

Assuming storage capacity continues to double every 18 months ( big assumption!), and that we currently have 500G drives commercially available, we can expect to see this capacity in a single drive in less than 20 years.


Re:Capacity. (0, Redundant)

dextromulous (627459) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018880)

Using some info from Apple's site, because I'm too lazy to look anywhere else, the 80GB iPod holds "100 hours of video." So, using your numbers from IMDB, that makes it ~892 TB [google.ca]. Of course, the amount of "all the world's" videos will have gone up by then as well... and who knows about 18 month doubling (also, the iPods don't use 3.5" drives,) but aren't numbers fun?

Media files will keep growing (3, Interesting)

linuxci (3530) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017716)

I doubt that there'll ever be an iPod that can hold everything, but then again I doubt the author truly believes it. The more space we have the more we make use of it. 15 years ago a 4GB hard drive would be seen as enormous, now for many people 100GB ain't enough.

New content is produced all the time, content is also likely to be stored at a better quality as long as space keeps increasing. I'm looking forward to the day of 80GB nanos, to me the nano is the ideal size, any smaller and it'd be awkward to control.

Re:Media files will keep growing (1)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018392)

My father made an insightful comment to me at the beginning of the PC era -
As the storage space increases, the applications will expand to use the available space. It's an arms race. You'll never have 'more than enough' storage.
I've found those words to ring true for a quarter century now. I just purchased a 300GB drive to use as a backup for my primary 300GB desktop machine. I'm struggling to create a coherent backup strategy for several machines and about a half-a-terabyte of information. I suppose in about 5 years I'll be bitching about the petabyte-NAS-array not being sufficient.

Running the numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17018486)

Lets assume he's saying the iPod video screen resolution stays the same, and that video won't take up any more space. The timeframe he gave was 2012, six years time. In six years time you can expect an iPod to have storage capacity in the terabyte range. For megabyte-per-minute very low quality video one terabyte is only a million minutes, or 10 thousand feature length films. That's enough to store roughly 100 films per year of cinema - when you consider the worldwide cinematic output this is clearly inadequate, it does't even take TV into account.

Look at it another way. 1 terabyte is only enough to store 2 years of a 24-hour news channel's output. All video media? Hardly. You need petabytes of storage at a minimum....

640k is enough for anybody (5, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017732)

I'm really tempted to save that article just so I can pull it out and show how naive people were back in 2006. If there is one thing time has taught me, it's that the volume of information expands in relation to your available storage. I mean 10 years ago one of our 500GB modern hard drives could have probably stored all of the video available on the internet with room to spare.

I do agree that an iPod like device could probably hold enough video (high quality video at that) to well exceed its battery life however (modern iPods have no trouble doing that with music).

Re:640k is enough for anybody (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018094)

Modern iPods have no problem holding enough video to exceed batter life: Battery life while playing video is a little over 6 hours on the newer iPods, and you can easily store a half-dozen movies at DVD-quality. (Or at their own max playable quality, which is slightly lower.)

Re:640k is[n't] enough for anybody (1)

overnight_failure (1032886) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018292)

Using your example, you are therefore saying that some future technology will be capable of holding all the videos that are available in the present.

That is most likely going to be true but it doesn't mean that there will be something that can store all the videos available when that technology exists. Apart from anything else, there is an enormous difference in the size of the files between the diferent time periods in your example.

In the meantime... (1)

davidmcg (796487) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017734)

In the future it's not just the iPod improving, here's my Zune [browserden.co.uk] predictions - in 15 years Microsoft releases their 80GB model which is lighter than an eighties cellphone. Microsoft fans will say how much the new puke coloured model looks better in real life than it does in photograhs and Ballmer will be telling us how the new model can squirt even further and can squirt multiple people at the same time.

I do think the iPod will be facing some serious challengers in the next few years which is what we need to keep the flow of innovations but the Zune is not going to be it. Once storage gets smaller expect cellphones to be a credible solution, UI on most cellphones suck (particularly Motorola, Nokia is probably the best but not perfect), that I think will mean apple doesn't have to worry for a little while longer.

Back to the topic, the most capacity I'd really need out of a device is enough space to keep enough music and videos to keep me entertained during a vacation so I don't need to bring a laptop if I don't want to. Everything else can be stored on my home computer, it'd be great if it was possible to have enough storage cheap enough to store the worlds video collection (YouTube's hardware costs would be minimal then - Google would love that) but in reality do we really need our own personal YouTube mirror?

it can hold everything? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17017740)

including the exponentially increasing number of Naruto anime music videos?

Questionably useful? (3, Insightful)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017752)

Imagine a video iPod with a nice little screen (640x480) and enough store for your entire video and music collection.

You can carry it with you anywhere.


I can usefully take music with me, because I can *listen* while I physically perform other tasks - like being at the gym, sitting down at work while I code.

But *video?*

Video is much less useful, because to *watch* you can't be doing other things - your eyes are occupied.

So I think it's only useful for being portable in situations where you have to sit and *wait* and cannot do other things.

For me that means just one thing; waiting for the bus and maybe when I'm on the bus, if it doesn't make me feel ill.

For others, I can only imagine similar situations, e.g. being stuck on a mode of transport.

Anti Image-Stabilization (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018534)

By 2012, you won't have to worry about the video making you ill while riding on a bus or car, because screens will be fast enough to do anti image-stabilization. (my invention) Your iPod will have a G sensor in it, and will compensate for the bouncing so that your brain doesn't get the idea that the image is wonky.

It requires a display bigger than the actual image, and little or no persistence, but it fools your eyes into thinking that the images are being displayed on a motionless screen outside the vehicle.

I remember old futurologist from 1960 (1)

denisbergeron (197036) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017762)

In 2000 we all travel in flying car without any traffic jam, doctor will be a very knowledge computer, and we will have a pill that solve all the medical problem, and the must important, we will live in a society of leisure, eveyone will need to work only one hour by month.

Now, I travel in my car 1 hour every morming to be closed in a stupid cube 8 to 10 hours by day. I have to way to see a doctor, and the doctor is most of the time unknowledge. The pill he gave me have so side effect that I become more sick, and I have to spend all my time in the cube paying for this. Maybe, if I'm good with god, I will be able to take 5 minutes by year of leisure.

Re:I remember old futurologist from 1960 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17018474)

Maybe, by year 2040, you learn write English, Borat. (Bad grammar intended.)

He said 'iPod'! Sue him! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17017776)

Isn't it, like, violating Apple's rights or whatever is a Google guy uses the term 'iPod'? Yehova, Yehooova!

In 10 Years Time... (1)

rhartness (993048) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017778)

... the storage space won't matter. If DRM legislators have their way, you won't be able to have any video on your iPod do to some stupid copy right law.

Paging the **AA (2, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017802)

Carrying a drive with all the video in the world sounds like a great way to become the target of all the lawsuits in the world. Unless, of course, you have already paid all the money in the world for all the proper licensing rights in the world.

Re:Paging the **AA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17018140)

Uh, he's saying that storage capacity is going to continue to increase, not that you personally are going to walk around with All The Video In The World in your pocket.

Re:Paging the **AA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17018494)

Uh, he's saying that storage capacity is going to continue to increase, not that you personally are going to walk around with All The Video In The World in your pocket.
*====---- <---joke

O <---your head

I don't think so (1)

I'm not god any more (613402) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017820)

Let me guess: 4 billion people constantly videoing each other with their HD capable cell phones..

Sorry, content will/is being generated as too high a rate to ever hold all the video ever produced.

I look forward to installing Google Desktop on my ipod to find the interesting stuff on my player.

Resolution and Quality? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017832)

There is always a trade-off between quality, disk space, and the power required for decompression. Perhaps we will be happy having all of this video content at today's resolution, but somehow I suspect that we will use up the extra space for quality or for some other reason - like increased battery life. Yet another option is not increasing the storage on the device and bringing the price down. For instance, a 4GB Nano is now roughly half of the price of an original 5GB iPod, and it is much smaller, has a color screen, is solid-state, has better audio quality, and has better battery life. I'd expect that trend to continue.

The barriers are political, not technical (2, Insightful)

defile (1059) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017836)

We could already be watching all of our TV shows over the internet on-demand.

The average person isn't watching the bulk of their TV this way because the networks don't want to give up that kind of control. To say nothing about the people who don't even want to control their TV experience. Some people are just happy to flop onto the couch and let a gigantic media corporation design their entire evening's entertainment experience.

Am I a villager? (0, Offtopic)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017882)

Am I a villager? I ask that question because I have never been caught up in the hype surrounding the iPOD. It somehow, does not appeal to me in any way. I watch and listen to news the "old" fashioned way. Am I alone? Or is there someone like me out there.

Re:Am I a villager? (2, Informative)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018188)

I spend three hours a day commuting on trains to/from Chicago. At this point, I would estimate that 65% of "regulars" (i.e. monthly ticket holders) are using iPods or portable CD players. Another 25% are reading (newspapers, novels, the Bible). Only about 10% actually talk to each other. The rest of us hate them and wish they'd STFU.

Re:Am I a villager? (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018558)

I watch and listen to news the "old" fashioned way.
From the village wise man then, or from the town crier, or from the trader who visits your town? Oh, so not really the "old" fashioned way then. I bet there are some people who will only get there new from the radio, or the newspaper.

You know, I don't have an ipod, it takes me 10 minutes to walk to work. But i also don't feel the need to tell people that I don't want one.

SO no, you are not a villager, merely an idiot who can't quite handle the concept that the world is made of different people wanting different things.

Disks aren't getting faster fast enough (1)

GGardner (97375) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017896)

While storage technology has been growing in capacity at a remarkable rate, transfer speeds seem to be growing at a much slower rate. Let's say I've got an Ipod that can hold all the world's videos -- how long it might it take to get them all to it?

Already here (1)

oggiejnr (999258) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017916)

My MP3 player can already hold every video ever made (or going to be made for that matter). I'm just having problems storing the keys I need to find them - some of them can be over 700MBytes.

First, the MPAA would be pissed (1)

ConfusedSelfHating (1000521) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017922)

Second, we would have the same storage just smaller size. Why have a flash memory MP3 player instead of a hard drive MP3 player? Smaller size. I think anyone who has read anything in the Cyber Punk genre knows about implanted memory. Having a few terabytes of internal memory may start to be common place. Have Wikipedia in the head.

And yes pissing off the MPAA would be reason enough to make a player that stored all of the world's video.

Re:First, the MPAA would be pissed (1)

sakusha (441986) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018034)

Having a few terabytes of internal memory may start to be common place. Have Wikipedia in the head.

I remember the olden days when we called that "getting an education."

Re:First, the MPAA would be pissed (2, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018184)

I remember the olden days when we called that "getting an education."

It used to be doctors personally knew about all the drugs you could give a person. Nowadays we have the PDR, and we don't think doctors are worse for it.

Re:First, the MPAA would be pissed (1)

SleepyHappyDoc (813919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018448)

Have Wikipedia in the head.

Hmm. The free brain anyone can edit. This conjures up strange images of large groups of people suddenly stopping still with vacant expressions, after being hit by a brain-blanking vandal.

Then again, that doesn't sound much different than television.

This will be very dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17017932)

If you put too much video in one place, a singularity can form, which would really suck.

Storage vs. Quality (1)

sakusha (441986) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017942)

I remember discussing this online before, some guy said that someday there will be hard drives big enough to store every song he owns. I said I already have a hard drive that stores every song I own, and my music library is only about 160Gb. I retorted that someday there will be hard drives big enough to store every song ever [I]recorded,[/I] it would be like someone delivering an iPod with the entire iTunes music library already on it, and you'd just need keys to unlock any song you want.
But there's a problem, of course. Music fans hate low bitrate encodings. And it's the same way with video. I remember the days of Video Discs, it was great picture quality, and it started off the era of drastically improved video display systems, big screens, etc. And then just as the TV equipment started to get really good, Video Discs were discontinued, and they started delivering the content in compressed format. There's no DVD that can compare with the image quality of an uncompressed Laser Disc, DVDs are usually 6:1 compression. Satellite is the same way, it started out as enthusiasts with big dishes receiving the uncompressed signals, then as it became mainstream, systems like DirecTV used compression, usually 8:1 or worse. Cable is doing the same thing now with digital cable.
And YouTube is even worse, the basic storage format is 320x240, even though it's displayed in their web pages upscaled at a higher rez. Sure it's a compromise in quality to save bandwidth. But every single one of these compromises sucks, it's set during the early adoption phase when bandwidth is inadequate or expensive, then as bandwidth becomes more available or cheaper, everyone bemoans the lack of quality due to the high compression. Some systems upgrade, like the iTunes movies that are now in 640x480 instead of 320x240, but they're still heavily compressed, it isn't practical to deliver DVD quality compression, let alone uncompressed video.
So I am dissatisfied with these compromises. The video industry has spent billions developing the latest and greatest display technology, but the content delivery systems are just not delivering anything close to the quality these systems can display. What is wrong with this picture?
Sure we can make a video iPod that could hold almost unlimited quantities of video. It's just going to be so compressed that it won't be worth watching. Hell, I'll deliver a highly compressed video stream right here in this message:
That was 800 hours of video compressed down to two bytes. Sorry if the compression was a bit severe.

Re:Storage vs. Quality (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17018162)

Dude...you should have stated that the video was NSFW :|

Sure... (1)

overnight_failure (1032886) | more than 7 years ago | (#17017998)

...and I'll be commuting to Mars for work.

Sounds just like the BT 'technologist' who thought we'd be plugging cables directly into the back of our heads soon.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17018028)

I for one welcome our new media storing iPod overlords!

News Flash (2, Funny)

Darth Muffin (781947) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018050)

Daton, Ohio, Dec. 2nd, 2017. John Smith, a plumber by trade in Ohio, accidentally plugged in his new 20Petabyte iPod into an unfirewalled port on his home router. As a result every video and movie ever made was unintentionally shared out to the Internet. The MPAA is suing for $14 Trillion.

Off by a factor of a bajillion (2, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018088)

As an exercise in DVR-ology I worked out that by 2016 I should be able to buy enough hard drive space for &lt $500 (today's dollars) to hold all the video I'd want to watch for most of my life online, using a RAID mirror, by just scaling up Moore's Law. OK, so that much data could be un-RAID'ed on an iPod by then.

But that's just me. Given HD camcorders [amazon.com], YouTube [youtube.com] and 6 Billion people on earth, rapidly becoming technological, "All the Video in The World" is about 6 billion times larger than what we can do next decade - that's several more decades of Moore's Law to contend with.

The iPod Pequeno already does! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17018122)

The iPod Pequeno already holds every song known to man...
of course, by christmas it will be obsolete!

you've gotta love how SNL skits become reality.

What do they mean? (1)

fury88 (905473) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018126)

I can already put all the video in the world on my iPod! At 5,000,000:1 compression ratio! Who said it was viewable though?!

The internet in a CD (1)

ericlondaits (32714) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018202)

Saying an iPOD will be able to store every video ever produced is like saying that eventually will have digital optical discs with enough capacity to hold the whole internet. It misses the point completely. Once upon a time we'd go and buy a good soft repository (like SIMTEL, to name one) in a couple of CDs ... and that would take care of the need to download files off BBSs. Now the internet is more about dynamic content (like Slashdot), and the constant generation of new static content (like new videos uploaded daily to YouTube, new flash animations, etc.). The speed of software distribution makes shareware/freeware CDs pointless, since they can become obsolete in a month. So, thinking about holding every video in an iPOD sounds to me like thinking of tomorrow technology in today's terms. We already have video cameras in most modern cell phones, palms, etc. so let me assume the live streaming of HD video, and other new forms of amateur video, will seriously define what YouTube will be like in the future. And holding every single video in existence won't sound so logical.

All your media are belong to us! (1)

ObiWanStevobi (1030352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018210)

Are my reading skills off, or is Google saying that an Ipod will be able to connect to a server capable of holding all the media in the world? That I'd find believable.

As a result, the Google VP believes, there will be greater convergence between mobile and internet, as consumers expect to be able to access traditional web content and services on the mobile platform.

Google is talking about network storage, Apple is talking local.

Apple's claim is pretty bold saying that an entire years worth of all video produced can be stored locally for the same price (for the device at least).

sh1t (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17018218)

when IDC 8ecently and sling or table to the transmission Politics openly. to the crowd in *BSD has steadiLy little-known the reaper In a

I'm guessing no (1)

fangorious (1024903) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018230)

All your media are belong to iPod?

How many terrabytes are on Google Video and YouTube? Personally, even if I could store everything on one device, I wouldn't want to. Being able to retrieve any video to a device, directly from the device, would be pretty cool.

What are the numbers? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018236)

It says all video produced ever. What do they mean by that? Is that just Hollywood movies, or does it include Bollywood movies as well?

What about the Movies of other countries? Or about TV moovies? Or TV in general? OK. All the TV stations in the US? Worldwide?

How about movies made at home? Or with phones? CCTV?

Also won't the amount increase

How do you get it on there? (1)

pseudorand (603231) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018264)

Shouldn't they be working on the bandwidth problem first? What's the point of being ABLE to store everything ever made when my bandwidth will be more than saturated just downloading everything as it's released.

Let's see... (1)

Wdomburg (141264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018282)

Well, IMDB currently lists 471,241 movies. Let's assume those are about 90 minutes each. That's 42,411,690 of video. They also list 367,066 episodes of television shows. Let's assume those are about 22 minutes each (to account for commercials, we'll ignore hour long shows for now). That's another 8,075,452.

Encoded at 320x240 15fps mpeg-4 that comes to approximately 197TB. I'm willing to bet a kidney we won't have small form factor hard drives capaple of storing that in less than ten years.

Even if we did, it's a hell of a lot more likely that we'll see higher resolution video on portable devices, or ultra-ultra portable video devices (think thin, like new cell phones), or both.

Re:Let's see... (1)

i_should_be_working (720372) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018706)

Here's the other part of the math:

Assuming storage doubles every year, in 10 years we'll have 1024 times as much storage. Making the future Ipod's largest offering 80 terabytes. Well, that's closer than I thought it would be, but still not enough storage.

And your estimate doesn't count all the news, documentaries, home and security video. And that's only today's total video. I imagine in 10 years when every single device has a camera on it that's running all the time, there will be plenty more video out there.

640 petabytes should be enough for anybody (1)

arifirefox (1031488) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018312)

of course by that time we'll be demanding 360 degree surround sound, surround video with smellovision. ok maybe not the smellovision but we'll think of something to use all that capacity

Article needs more context for those quotes (2, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018354)

iPod to Eventually Hold All the Video in the World?

Article:Arora said, by 2012, iPods could launch at similar prices to those on sale now and yet be capable of holding a whole year's worth of video releases. Around 10 years down the line that could be expanded, creating iPods that can hold all the music ever sold commercially.Article, II (emphasis mine):
He said: "In 12 years, why not an iPod that can carry any video ever produced?"

Any != all. I get the weird feeling that either he's tossing speculation around (most likely), or there was a part skipped in the article, where Arora discusses distribution methods, and how video content will be just as (or more) available in digital format as music is now.

As to his question of "why not" an iPod that can hold all video ever produced (if that is what he was asking), the answer is that there will be no demand for a personal player with that much storage -- and since it will be more expensive than a smaller-storage device that meets the demand for storage volume, the smaller-storge device will win the pricing/distribution war. In light of this, why bother developing an expensive product with little demand?

Bad idea, it'll clog the tubes! (1)

oZZoZZ (627043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018408)

Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday. Why? [...] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Not about the storage. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17018568)

This isn't about storage. This isn't about networking. It's about a device specifically designed to do one or two things very, very well, that anyone can use.

That was the spirit of the first Macintosh. But whoops, people don't want a general-purpose computer. They want a toaster. The Mac was supposed to be a data toaster, and as such, performed half-brilliantly (having to swap floppies to move the viewport in MacPaint was a little harsh). Here's the thing: People don't give a damn about data. They're not data processors. They'll never be data processors.

Most people just want the result of the data which is, BAM, every episode of M*A*S*H* there ever was, ever.

Now if Apple could just invent an iPod that did accounting or electronic medical records or manufacturing inventory (and nothing else) we'd be stylin'.

b.s.! I have 3.25 terabytes and it isn't enough! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17018596)


I have 3.25T of space, and have to sometimes delete gigs a day just to get by.

It's NOT enough space, and I have to keep MOST of my media offline. It certainly doesn't hold all the videos in the world, or even all the videos I have ever watched, or even all the videos I intend to watch.

You would need to go past terabytes, petabytes, zetabytes, and probably even exabytes before you could manage ALL THE VIDEO, EVER.

And what would this cost me? (1)

gjuk (940514) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018660)

Youtube's all well and good; but not exactly what I'd call an evening's entertainment. If video pricing is anything like music pricing; the limiting factor is income not memory; if you have an iPod with 10000 paid-for tunes (a fraction of the capacity of some), you're looking at the hardware cost being 2% of your total expenditure...

We'd need a radical new system of pricing - quality media very cheap/free; or free at point of download and then paid for when used (perhaps after a few minutes' trial)

Anyway - by the time this is possible, won't downloading be a bit old-fashioned? Isn't google's plan that we do everything online? Wouldn't we be better off with ubuiquitous high speed wireless?

Let's hope they leave YouTube's content off... (2, Insightful)

Channard (693317) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018690)

.. because I sure as hell don't need six hundred gigabytes of random footage spliced with various unrelated songs. Think I'm kidding? Do a search on YouTube and half the results that come up are those crap. Of course, bearing in mind that much of the content on youtube is, despite Google's best efforts to remove it, made up of copyrighted material, that may be a good enough reason to keep it off.

Reading into that statement just a little bit... (1)

almondjoy (162478) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018796)

Who do you think is going to be in the best position to host all that video content? ...the 'plex [wikipedia.org] of course.

Transfer time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17018798)

No seriously. By the time all the crap transfer on, there'll be a whole new set of video created on the net. Seeing as how more and more people are carrying around video cameras and even worse they're making bad movies.

I can imagine some people being stuck in the 1980's ... it'll be cheaper (and in some cases better) entertainment. It'll be funny watching how producing new stuff will be hard because of having to compete with older stuff which will be actively promoted by the corporations owning the content. If you are a large corp that own mad 80's shows .. wouldnt you push those instead of having to pay the costs & risks associated with new shows? The cost to you of providing older shows is only marketing and promotion. Zero in terms of production. I am not saying that new shows won't be produced .. people are always hungry for content that deals with issues of their time .. but they'll just probably not command a huge budget ..since content owners will be afraid to spend the money on risky new show concepts, rather they'll rehash old characters.

There is also another possible extreme. And that is that content owners will make the older content just as expensive as the new content. This way they can make people who want entertainment buy the newer stuff so they can recover their costs. The incentive to make newer stuff of high quality will vanish since the competition from pre-existing content will not exist.

So, I'm torn between the two scenarios. One thing is sure. The quality of new shows will be reduced.

And either way, they win ..we lose.

Eternal copyrights promoting the progress of arts once again.

What about the good stuff?? (1)

3.14159265 (644043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17018854)

I really don't see this happening, how can he ever think he'd be able to keep up with all that porn out there?...
Load More 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