Mio Babic

Akamai Acknowledges It's Not Delivering HD Video to the iPhone

Natively it is impossible to display HD resolutions on iPhone which has a max screen resolution of 480x320 (video encoded in max resolution of 640x480, 30 frames of second). HD resolutions are 1280x720 (720p) and 1920x1080(1080i/p) and they cannot be displayed on iPhone.

In fact, HD video is defined with three major parameters:
1) Frame Size, which is stated in pixels and defines the number of horizontal pixels times (x) vertical pixels (i.e., 1280x720 or 1920x1080).
2) Scanning System, which is identified as progressive scanning (p), or interlaced scanning (i), and
3) Frame Rate, which is identified as a number of frames per second.

Essentially, even if HD source is used to create the output video played on iPhone, at max bitrate of 1.5Mbps using iPhone HTTP adaptive streaming, we still end up with 400x224 video. With that in mind it might be helpful to clearly define what would qualify as HD video on the web and also set web standards for different devices (desktop vs. mobile vs. portable devices).

Dan, I’m not sure how do we approach the mobile space (i.e., iPhone and soon Android and others) in terms of what would, if anything, qualify as HD experience on these types of devices? Perhaps you and Tim could help with this process?

Sun CEO's Claim That JavaFX Is the Fastest Growing RIA Platform: Completely Untrue

I think everyone in the industry welcomes another RIA option as long as it creates/promotes a constructive competition and forces everyone to continue to innovate. However, just like Dan I find hard to believe that JavFX even remotely comes close to Adobe AIR or Microsoft Silverlight. Dan, has anyone (preferably 3rd party research company) done an actual research and validated numbers we are recently getting from all three sides?

NFL Launches "Game Rewind", Every Game On Demand in HD, No Commercials

With all uncertainty surrounding the economy and cuts in advertising budgets expect to see more and more content offered on a pay basis. Ideally, it would be a combination of free ads based content (perhaps offered at lowered quality) and paid, ads-free, in HD or highest possible quality content. In the past this wasn't successful for a number of reasons including lack of premium content and quality. Quality issue is now behind us with the advent of adaptive streaming technology, mainly adaptive streaming from Move Networks.

YouTube's Live Event: As Overhyped as the Company

It’s great to see someone like YouTube with large audience decides and actually does the live webcast. Although this appears to be purely a test and not monetization play, if numbers portrayed are accurate, it shows a value of live streaming versus staged and always available video on-demand. Without a doubt there is always a level or uncertainty with audience size and ability to deliver content to large flash crowds, if they do materialize. When planning for live events content owners, in particular those who have never done this before, tend to overestimate their numbers simply because they don’t understand or don’t have data or experience that could indicate more realistic traffic. If flash crowds do materialize, there are only a few players that can handle those and they are all true CDNs with traditional CDN offerings, including Akamai and Limelight. Other folks referenced in the article are service providers (encoding, etc..) and not networks that actually deliver bits. Perhaps a clear and concise statement from YouTube outlining objectives (promotion and/or monetization) with audience size and maybe average viewing time would be appropriate. Nonetheless, it would certainly give sense to other content owners and industry on what type of success can be generated by someone who does have large audience -- at least for its core offering.