For those that haven't already heard, the 2010 Streaming Media West show will be in a new city this year, taking place November 1-3 at the Hyatt Regency Century Plaza in Los Angeles, CA. This will mark the 13th year for the West Coast show and with the move from San Jose to Los Angeles, we expect the show to be bigger and better than ever.

While the show is not for another six months, I'm already actively working on the advance program and the call for speakers is now open. In addition to speakers, I'm also looking for moderators and potentially one or two workshop instructors. One of the workshops I want to add this year is on HTML 5 video, so if you can present on the topic and have prior training/teaching experience, please contact me ASAP.

I'm looking for all ideas, listening to all proposals and looking to pay
one or two people to help me program some of the show. If you're
interested in getting more involved on this level, please contact me ASAP.

With the move to LA, some might be concerned that the show might now only focus on media and entertainment subjects. But rest assured, we're still going to cover all of the business, technology and content topics we've covered at our previous shows.

With the show now in LA, and with all that goes on in the city, we're also looking to involve and work with as many local video organizations as possible. So if you know of a meetup group or association based around video, content creation etc. we'd love to hear who they are.

In addition, we're pleased to announce that in conjunction with the Streaming Media West show, we're once again having the two-day Online Video Platform Summit that was such a success last year. Hit up the website for more details on speaking and how to send in your speaking proposal.

Each year I go to plan a show, I get tons and tons of calls and emails from companies last minute who want to be involved in the event and are upset when the program is already filled. We do tons of marketing months before the event and a lot of the program has to be planned far in advance for these marketing purposes.

The bottom line is that NOW is the chance for you to have a say and make
an impact on the program. So if you have an idea, want to run something by me, have a question, want to moderate or get paid to help with the West show, the next 4 weeks is the time to contact me. You can send me email or call me anytime at 917-523-4562. I look forward to hearing from you.

If you want more details on the OVP Summit, contact Eric at 920-342-6263.

Last week Engadget reported that Apple is working on their next-generation Apple TV, described as an "iPhone without a screen" saying it will retail for only $99. The report says the device will have capacity for 16GB of storage via flash memory and will support 1080p streaming. While any Apple device priced at $99 will sell well, if Apple offers a monthly subscription service similar to Netflix, then this truly could be a game changer for the industry.

Clearly the big difference with this new Apple TV is the fact that Apple is going to focus on delivering movies via streaming for rental or via some kind of subscription service, rather than consumers purchasing the content for download. With only 16GB of storage, the new Apple TV can't hold many movies but can act as the streaming gateway between iTunes and your TV. This also make sense since Apple has already said they plan to bring a lot of their content into the cloud when they open their new data center in North Carolina later this year.

If Apple does not offer some kind of subscription based service, the device will sell well if priced at $99, but will not truly be a game changer. Just renting one movie at a time is not a big deal and won't draw in a new group of consumers. From a hardware perspective, the original Apple TV wasn't lacking any functionality, it was simply too expensive and didn't have any kind of content service consumers wanted. But in the three and half years since the Apple TV was released, we've seen Apple launch each of their new devices with some kind of content lineup.

The hardware specs for the new Apple TV is not the big story, instead, it's how Apple plans to package their content lineup in the iTunes store for the device and what content owners will let them do. Apple can't make any money from a $99 device, so we all know there is going to have to be some kind of content based service offering and my guess is that it will involve some kind of subscription service.

I know I am not the only one who thinks there is way too much hype within some segments of the online video industry and none more than the subject of "cord cutting". Far too many writers, bloggers and analysts are preaching about consumers dropping their cable service in favor of getting video content from the Internet when in reality, that's not happening in any large scale and shows no signs of doing so. I get the sense that many are simply writing for headlines and want to use scare tactics like cord cutting to create a false sense of panic amongst those who don't know better.

As the economy starts to show small signs of improving, it seems more people want to try to build this industry back up with hype rather than with cold hard facts. The online video industry has been through a lot of bubbles in the past and any vendor in this space will tell you they stink for business. Part of the bursting of those bubbles is due to many preaching about things taking place in this industry that simply aren't happening and as a result, are setting wrong expectations.

That's not to say the topic of cord cutting should not be discussed, but when many people use
the phrase, they make it sound like it's impacting the market, when it
isn't. In fact, the cable companies continue to grow their subscriptions
to TV year after year and more than 90% of U.S. households subscribe to some kind of pay TV service. Anyone who thinks the cable companies are dying
or that online video based content offerings even come close to what
cable offers in terms of reach, inventory and quality, is fooling
themselves and hurting the industry by implying it.

The cord cutting phrase could turn out to be the single biggest downfall in this industry, simply to do the fact, that's it's not taking place in volume. In fact, to even imply it, without mentioned that it's an isolated case is simply wrong. When some want to imply, suggest or predict that the cable industry is going to be taken over by an online video based offering, they setting up a lot of companies in this market to fail. Based on those wild predictions, vendors change their entire strategies, raise new capital for a market that does not exist and lose focus on the real business opportunities in the market today. Companies start believing the hype and get so focused on what they think is the "holy grail" of the online video industry that they lose their way. All we have to do is look at "TV Everywhere" as an example of this.

When Comcast first announced their TV everywhere service, now called Xfinity, the vast majority of bloggers and analysts fell all over themselves to talk about how good it was going to be and how it was the start of a new "TV Everywhere" revolution. The service was not even live in the market and blog post after blog post hyped the service like never before. Yet, now that the service has been out for five months, where are all those analysts who said it was the start of a whole new TV Everywhere revolution? When was the last time you saw anyone write anything about Xfinity? So far, it's has had absolutely zero impact on the market, yet how much hype surrounded it before it even launched? And now that it's in the market, where are those same writers and analysts who said it was going to change the landscape for pay TV? And I'm not picking on Comcast because three years before Xfinity, all the hype was around Joost and the impact it would have on cord cutting. How well did that work out?

Every month is seems like a new report is coming out that wants to imply that cord cutting is taking place and is going to ramp up over the next few years. A recent report from the Yankee Group predicts that 1 in 8 consumers plans to cut their TV service this year in favor of Internet options but rightfully points out that, "the decision to cut off pay TV services is an economic one." I know of many folks who have cut their cable service simply due to the fact that they don't watch a lot of TV to begin with and are simply trying to save money. But that has nothing to do with getting video online.

And by survey standards, even I would be classified as one of those eight users who the Yankee Group says, "will reduce their pay TV services" since I recently canceled my HBO service as I watch more cable shows than I do movies. But I didn't cancel HBO because I can get their content online, I can't. I reduced my pay TV services simply because I wasn't watching movies. Consumers do cancel services for other reasons besides just replacing them with a different distribution medium. I do like the fact that in the report, the Yankee Group does say that cord cutting is a, "small phenomenon now" which puts things properly in perspective, but sends quite a different message than the title of the press release which is, "New report finds consumers reducing or eliminating pay TV services in favor of Internet options." That's a bit of a mixed message.

Another report by Strategy Analytics estimates that, "the number of so-called "cord cutters" could reach more than 10% of US television households by the end of the year." What they don't say is why these consumers will supposedly cut the cord and whether the cord cutting is a result of a poor economy with people trying to save money, or because they are replacing that video consumption in some other way. This is just one example but there are lots of reports out in the market that use language that's very generic, yet also seems to want to alarm readers.

At the Cable Show last month, executives from multiple cable companies said so far, "there’s not any real evidence" of cord cutting and mentioned that telephone companies that reported earnings in May added about 500,000 net new subscribers combined in the first quarter. Or course, you can't always believe what a cable executive may tell you when it comes to online video, since they have a vested interest in not seeing more content move to the web, but it's hard to argue with the number of new subscribers for pay TV. Not to mention, if even 10% of all the current TV subscribers went to the web to get video at the same time, delivering that video on the Internet would not scale with a guaranteed quality of service (QoS).

Of course, just like the print business, we know the pay TV business is
being disrupted thanks to the Internet, that I am not debating. But instead of many thinking of
online video as a replacement for TV, it should really be thought of as a
compliment to it. While we each have our own opinions on pay TV
services, frankly I'm happy paying $95 a month for a 25Mbps FiOS
connection, tons of channels I actually watch, video quality I can't get
online and unlimited phone calls. Clearly some won't agree with me but
that's simply a difference in video usage, content tastes and perceived
value of the service. But to imply that any large volume of people are cutting their cable TV service in favor of online video, or that there is any data to show this is a major trend moving forward, simply would not be accurate.

Related:

– Cable Companies Hyping Over-The-Top Video, But Where's The Business Model?

– Some Industry Vendors Betting Big On TV Everywhere, Most Will Lose

– The Promise Of TV Everywhere Is Doomed For Failure, Here's Why

– TV Everywhere Offerings Will Struggle To Be Successful

While I agree with those that think Google making VP8 an open-source video codec is a big deal, even if it ends up having licensing issues, it's way too early for anyone to talk about the demise of H.264. It took years for H.264 to surpass VP6 and become the preferred video codec  and it will take years for VP8 to seriously challenge H.264. While initially the introduction of VP8 is bad news for content owners since it means more complexity in their workflow, over time it's really about giving them more choice, which is a good thing.

For Google, they know that VP8 is a long-term play, just like YouTube has been. Google is willing to spend the time and money to get VP8 widely adopted without the need for the codec to have to generate any revenue for any of their product lines. Google makes no money from licensing VP8 so this is not about money for them, not yet at least. Initially, VP8 will be just like YouTube. A platform that enables them to get mass scale and reach and plenty of time to integrate video into other major lines of their business.

As the browser wars continue to heat up and companies take sides on which video codecs they will support, Google's in a unique position. Not only do they own one of the fastest growing browsers with Chrome, but now they also own the VP8 video codec and control YouTube which has the most traffic of any site on the web. While some have suggested that all Google needs to do is convert everything on YouTube over to VP8 to get mainstream support for VP8, that by itself won't be enough. If it was that easy, then Google would not be working with all of the other hardware, software and platform partners they announced last week.

This is a long-term play for Google and one that involves multiple devices, which means they have to have hardware support. And even with the hardware partners they announced last week, we still don't know exactly what those hardware providers are going to do. While many partners were quick to say they "support" Google's initiatives, they haven't said exactly how they will do that or which future chipsets will offer support for VP8. The bottom line is that that true VP8 support is going to take years to get but Google is in a position where they don't need to rush the adoption. Google can take their time to do this right since HTML5 is still not ready for prime time and content owners still have plenty of time to devise content monetization models.

I'm sure some will judge Google based on the adoption of VP8 six months or even a year from now, but that would be short-sided thinking on their part. With the news Google put out last week and the groundwork they are laying for what will become of VP8, the real judge of VP8's impact on the market won't be truly felt for a few years.

When On2 announced their VP8 codec in September of 2008, they made some pretty big claims comparing the improved quality of VP8 over H.264. Specifically, On2 said that VP8, "delivers over 50% bandwidth savings compared to leading H.264 implementations" and stated that VP8, "surpasses the compression efficiency and performance of every other video format on the market." While the industry was quick to take note of these statements, many were also quick to question On2's claims. Now, based on test results published, it's clear that the quality of VP8 is not as good as On2 said it was and makes one wonder why Google isn't setting forth proper expectations since they now own the VP8 codec.

For more than a year, myself and others asked On2 time and again to provide the technology to the industry so that third-party evaluations comparing VP8 to H.264 could take place. While On2 had been in the codec business for a long time, they also garnered a reputation for making a lot of big performance claims with their other codecs, like VP7, that turned out not to be true. When Google decided to buy On2 last year, most people assumed that whatever On2's claims were about VP8 must be true or else why would Google be interested in the codec? While that would be a reasonable assumption to make, based on new test results, it's clear that VP8 is not better than H.264 at all.

To be fair to Google, at no time that I recall did Google ever say VP8 was 50% better than H.264. That was language that came from On2 and when Google acquired the company, they didn't make any performance claims comparing VP8 to any other codec. But the problem that Google now has with VP8 is that they also didn't refute anything On2 had been saying for the past 18 months. On2 set expectations for what VP8 could do and since Google didn't say otherwise, many are now going to be disappointed when they find out those claims aren't real.

Based on test results from two different codec experts, Jan Ozer (test results) and Jason Garrett-Glaser (test results), they both came to the conclusions that the VP8 codec provides similar quality to H.264, but in most cases, H.264 is still better quality wise than VP8. Both also stated that most won't notice the difference between VP8 and H.264, but that's not what VP8 was suppose to be about. VP8 was touted as the video codec that was suppose to replace H.264 because it could offer better quality at half the bandwidth, something both reviewers said is not possible.

Google did mention yesterday at their I/O
conference that by encoding videos for YouTube with the VP8 codec it would enable Google to save money on their bandwidth costs. But what Google didn't say is how much it would save them or even give any kind of comparison numbers highlighting the differences between H.264 and VP8 when it comes to the number of bits delivered. Considering that's suppose to be one of Google's selling points for VP8 and no details are given anywhere on their webmproject.org website regarding this subject, one has to wonder what Google is referring to.

After reading Jason Garrett-Glaser's long and very detailed review of VP8, it's clear that Google has some major problems that go a lot deeper than the subject of bandwidth savings. Jason found so many major problems with VP8 that he summed up his review by saying that, "VP8 is not ready for prime-time", "the encoder’s interface is lacking in features and buggy" and most importantly, it appears that Google has not improved upon the code they acquired from On2.

Jason says that, "the VP8 software basically is the spec–and with the spec being “final”, any bugs are now set in stone. Such bugs have already been found and Google has rejected fixes." While the specs may be final, in fairness to Google the website does say that the encoder/decoders are just preview releases and one would expect those to be improved upon over time. But if you are Google, why rush VP8 out to the market so fast when clearly it still has a lot of flaws? This is not a short-term play for Google and it's not like they rushed VP8 out the door to make money off the licensing.

Also, keep in mind that VP8 was out in the market for almost 18 months before Google acquired it and in that time, not a single content owner that I saw ever adopted VP8 from On2, even though On2 made a big stink about how many content owners were testing their VP8 codec. Now we know why we never saw any press releases in those 18 months announcing any customers for VP8.

Frankly, the way Google has handled the On2 acquisition and the release of VP8 simply has me puzzled. Google's not a bunch of dumb folks and I don't see why they would rush an inferior product out to the market, make it open-source and then hope it would unseat H.264 all while not getting any input from developers before the initial first release, even if it is beta. If Google permits changes to the spec and allows the developer community to help fix some of the glaring issues with VP8, I could see that approach. But at no time during Google's presentation yesterday did they frame the release of VP8 that way or ask for help from the development community to fix issues that they must know exist.

There are a lot of unanswered questions here and hopefully someone from Google will address these points on their blog since it's only going to be another 12 hours or so before these issues with VP8 come out of the small developer community blogs and into the major media spotlight.

No surprise here, Adobe has taken the stage at Google's I/O conference to announce that their Flash player will include VP8 codec support. Smart move on Adobe's part as now the Flash player supports video encoded in both H.264 and VP8. While many have been quick to say that H.264 will dominate the web for video content, with Google's announcement today, that's no longer clear. 

Apple is pushing H.264, Google is backing VP8. Things are going to get really interesting as the battle between H.264 and VP8 begins. I find it funny that for the last 15 years, almost no one outside of the industry even knew what a video codec was. Now all of a sudden, it seems everyone is learning what codes are, how they work and which ones should be used depending on the device that video is being played back on.

Google's announcement today has a lot of implications on the video industry and the real story, to me at least, it not about video codecs. It's bigger than that. For Google, I think this all ties back to advertising, which I'll explain in further details later on today.

As I expected, Google just announced a long list of partners who will support VP8 including 14 hardware vendors including AMD, NVIDIA, ARM, Texas Instruments, Qualcomm, Digital Rapids, ViewCast and Logitech amongst others. Other video ecosystem partners include Telestream, Anystream, Inlet, Brightcove, Encoding.com, Ooyala, Kaltura, Sorenson Media, and HD Cloud.

We don't have many details yet on how quickly hardware support for VP8 will be out on the market, but the fact Google has the major players on-board is a big deal. More to come.

You can see the entire list of partners here.