I'm working on it. On Jan 8, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Bora Akyol wrote:
That's because most of these people are watching the stream on their computer (Mac or PC).
Bring that box to the living room in an attractive package and the stats will be very different.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 7:45 AM To: colm@stdlib.net Cc: Andrew Odlyzko; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Jan 6, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 09:09:19AM -0600, Andrew Odlyzko wrote:
2. The question I don't understand is, why stream?
There are other good reasons, but fundamentally; because of live telivision.
In these days, when a terabyte disk for consumer PCs is about to be introduced, why bother with streaming? It is so much simpler to download (at faster than real-time rates, if possible), and play it back.
That might be worse for download operators, because people may download an hour of video, and only watch 5 minutes :/
Our logs show that, for every 100 people who start to watch a stream, only 2 or 5 % watch over 30 minutes in one sitting, even for VOD where they presumably have some interest in the movie up front, and more more than 9% will watch all of VOD movie, even over multiple viewings. This is also very consistent with time, but I don't have any pretty plots handy. (Our cumulative audience in 2006 was 2.74 million people, I have lots of statistics.)
So, from that standpoint, making a video file available for download is wasting order of 90% of the bandwidth used to download it.
Regards Marshall
-- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm +pgp@stdlib.net