<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Venice Project Becomes Joost</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.crackunit.com/2007/01/16/venice-project-becomes-joost/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.crackunit.com/2007/01/16/venice-project-becomes-joost/</link>
	<description>iain tait&#039;s blog about things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:58:14 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kief</title>
		<link>http://www.crackunit.com/2007/01/16/venice-project-becomes-joost/comment-page-1/#comment-1761</link>
		<dc:creator>Kief</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:59:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crackunit.com/?p=454#comment-1761</guid>
		<description>I love on-demand, geographically unconstrained access to commercial free TV content, and will become a dedicated customer if they get the economics and content right. My suspicion is that, for mainstream TV programming at least, the content owners aren&#039;t going to accept pricing that I&#039;d go for.

I need to get the shows I like to watch regularly (around 5-7 weekly series) and pay something similar to what I would pay for Sky or cable. If they charge Â£3 per episode of Lost (or whatever), it isn&#039;t going to temp me.

Of course the other possibility is that the content is purely youtube style long-tail.

As a techie, and someone who likes to get decent resolution files in a reasonable amount of time, I also hope their p2p protocol is more like bittorrent than Kazaa and Skype. The Kazaa/Skype protocol is fine if the goal is to directly distribute data between points A and B, e.g. what Skype does. For distributing large files to groups of people, e.g. what Kazaa did and what Joost sounds likes it&#039;s doing, bittorrent is far more effective. I&#039;m disappointed there&#039;s no mainstream video distribution based on bittorrent.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love on-demand, geographically unconstrained access to commercial free TV content, and will become a dedicated customer if they get the economics and content right. My suspicion is that, for mainstream TV programming at least, the content owners aren&#8217;t going to accept pricing that I&#8217;d go for.</p>
<p>I need to get the shows I like to watch regularly (around 5-7 weekly series) and pay something similar to what I would pay for Sky or cable. If they charge Â£3 per episode of Lost (or whatever), it isn&#8217;t going to temp me.</p>
<p>Of course the other possibility is that the content is purely youtube style long-tail.</p>
<p>As a techie, and someone who likes to get decent resolution files in a reasonable amount of time, I also hope their p2p protocol is more like bittorrent than Kazaa and Skype. The Kazaa/Skype protocol is fine if the goal is to directly distribute data between points A and B, e.g. what Skype does. For distributing large files to groups of people, e.g. what Kazaa did and what Joost sounds likes it&#8217;s doing, bittorrent is far more effective. I&#8217;m disappointed there&#8217;s no mainstream video distribution based on bittorrent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
