video feed?

I posted this in the "audio links" thread responding to a post by Chris '02, but that thread may not be of interest to many of you so this tidbit may have gone overlooked, so I'm pasting it here (and "EVERY" may not be totally accurate, but most every is):

Whoa! Things at i2sports are even more interesting than Colgate vs Cornell. EVERY Cornell home game is shown on their calendar and Cornell is listed as a "client" of theirs. The implication is that Cornell home games will have video feeds. Seems too good to be true, but for the time being I've added their info to the the audiolinks page (http://www.frontiernet.net/~letsgored/audiolinks.html)



Post Edited (10-20-03 17:57)

Does it cost anything?

Yeah, you heard me.

First of all, every time you load one of their pages on a Mac (and not using Netscape, incidentally), you get greeted by 2 separate JavaScript popups:
[q]You seem to be using Netscape. i2sports content is best viewed with Internet Explorer. Some pages may not load properly.[/q]
[q]You seem to be using a Mac or a Maytag. i2sports content is best viewed with a real PC.[/q]
Screw them. They can kiss my ass.

Their video page also has a link for "MAC, Netscape, or otherwise PC-challenged:" viewers, which doesn't work anyway. What a bunch of unprofessional assholes.

Well, the first popup could be somewhat valid, depending on the version of Netscape used. (Although, the programmers of the site should know enough to know how to detect which specific version of Netscape is being used.) Though, the second popup does seem...undiplomatic, at best.

I wasn't using Netscape.

Agreed, rather unprofessional for a business enterprise. The question remains though: are they going to be offering streaming video of Cornell's home games? If they were involved with the broadcast of last year's Cornell@Colgate game this could be very good; my recollection was that the image quality of that game's video was quite high (the announcing on the other hand...). In an effort to get an answer, I sent an email to the person given as the contact at i2sports. I'll report what (if anything) I hear.

Jason N '95 wrote:

Agreed, rather unprofessional for a business enterprise.

Consider me an agnostic, because I know nothing about the relative merits of Macs vs. PCs. But this board is constantly filled with Mac users slagging PCs. If i2sports doesn't run on Macs, that is bad, but if they do support Mac use (and Age's problems seem to be because something isn't working right, rather than there being no option) ... can't you people take a joke?



Post Edited (10-21-03 18:41)

Well, it doesn't run at all on Linux. (At least I'm assuming this; I haven't had a lot of luck trying to get mplayer to play Windoze Media crap.) But then neither does QuickTime (as I understand it's illegal to support the best codecs on an open source platform), so I'm willing to put up with the company putting out the feed being Micro$oft's bitch if it means we don't get reamed with subscription fees. Lesser of two evils.

In a better world there would be an open standard for streaming media, and everyone could use whatever player on whatever platform they want.

[Q]Agreed, rather unprofessional for a business enterprise.[/Q]
Sadly, this seems to be the professional way to go about things these days. Big corporations tend to chose one technology and one platform to support and that's it - cheap ones do it too.

[Q]can't you people take a joke?[/Q]
There's a difference between a joke and "you can't view Cornell hockey cause we're too lazy to support your choice of computer." We don't know if that's the case, of course, but if it is, it's hardly a 'joke.'

Of course, I have VPC, but I doubt it'll show well in emulation.

way too whine about a free service....

"You mean you're giving me something for free, but you won't cater to my specific needs?! INCONSIDERATE BASTARDS!"

Damn whining minority mac owners....

First of all, we don't know it's free (the site DOES have premium, log-in required content - I found some). Second of all, if it's doesn't work on my computer, they're not giving me anything, are they?

If it's free, and I just have to put up with an alternate link and a couple pop-up messages, I won't be complaining. Even if it's a moderate fee I won't complain much. We're not talking about picky needs - we're talking about basic functionality.

On the plus side, I found the same link Age did, which was broken. But another program had the alternate link working, and when I downloaded the file, it took 45 seconds to connect, but then streamed fine.

-Fred

DeltaOne81 '03 wrote:

First of all, we don't know it's free (the site DOES have premium, log-in required content - I found some). Second of all, if it's doesn't work on my computer, they're not giving me anything, are they?

If it's free, and I just have to put up with an alternate link and a couple pop-up messages, I won't be complaining. Even if it's a moderate fee I won't complain much. We're not talking about picky needs - we're talking about basic functionality.

On the plus side, I found the same link Age did, which was broken. But another program had the alternate link working, and when I downloaded the file, it took 45 seconds to connect, but then streamed fine.

-Fred

Point taken, and I apologize for the hostile tone of my previous message.
But still...this site is providing the vast majority of us with a (theoretically) free service that most of us would probably be willing to pay for. Should they really be chastized just because they don't cater to mac (I'm lumping all non-Window$ users into the category of mac for the sake of simplicity...) users?

Are you going to bitch about your local auto parts store for not having an EGR valve for your '73 Gremlin in stock? I don't think so. (It's essentially the same thing...sorry mac users. You can replace Gremlin with the foreign luxury automobile of your choice if it makes you feel any better )

DisplacedCornellian wrote:
Should they really be chastized just because they don't cater to mac (I'm lumping all non-Window$ users into the category of mac for the sake of simplicity...)

Yeah, well there's part of the problem right there.

[q]There's a difference between a joke and "you can't view Cornell hockey cause we're too lazy to support your choice of computer." We don't know if that's the case, of course, but if it is, it's hardly a 'joke.'[/q]

I'm not too familiar with comptability issues, but would it cost them more to make the video compatible with Mac? It would make sense for them to cater to the larger audience if it was a cost issue.

[q] Are you going to bitch about your local auto parts store for not having an EGR valve for your '73 Gremlin in stock? I don't think so. [/q]

I am, because I own one. No, I'm not kidding

John T. Whelan '91 wrote:

Yeah, well there's part of the problem right there.

I don't follow. How is grouping non-windows based machines into one group for the sake of simplicity a problem.

And please spare me any holier-than-thou-microsoft-is-the-devil garbage.

Windows is the dominant OS, thus companies looking to serve the most customers are obviously going to make sure they have windows compatibility before worrying about any of the other operating systems.

Does it suck that windows is the dominant OS? Maybe.

Should we fault companies with limited resources for making sure they have windows covered before they worry about every other operating system in existence? no.

[Q]Are you going to bitch about your local auto parts store for not having an EGR valve for your '73 Gremlin in stock? I don't think so. (It's essentially the same thing...sorry mac users. You can replace Gremlin with the foreign luxury automobile of your choice if it makes you feel any better )[/Q]
Of course not, I'd just go to the other store. Then again, if it was the only store within an hour drive... or the only store period that could offer what I need. You damn well better believe I'd bitch until I got it.

[Q]I'm not too familiar with comptability issues, but would it cost them more to make the video compatible with Mac? It would make sense for them to cater to the larger audience if it was a cost issue.[/Q]
No, it really wouldn't be much more expensive... maybe a *tiny* bit, but not significantly, and certainly not long term. Maybe there'd be a tiny little investment to begin with, but once it's set up, it's set up - they don't have to support Macs, just give us a way to do it.

They wouldn't even have to change away from Windows Media. There's a Windows Media Player for the Mac (oddly named, I know), and it supports most of the Windows Media codecs. All they have to do is pick one of the ones that are supported cross platforms. Luckily, they seem to have done this. I know there have been several sites that stream college hockey (audio usually) that just happen to chose one of the ones that only works on Windows... annoying.

Or, how about this... QuickTime... completely supported on both Windows and Mac, and the streaming server software is FREE . That's right, free... no paying MS to use their server software or license their codec. Free streaming software, open-source even, I believe. And, you support more people with it.

Good explanation of why it bugs me, I hope?

(Not sure where this response best fits, so I'll tack it onto BRA's.)

Not wishing to be involved in any part of the Mac vs PC discussion, but just to clarify: I agreed about them being unprofessional because I thought the mocking tone of their popups was not really befitting a business. The messages themselves are very tame --and humorous-- but seem out of line for a commercial enterprise. I think we all need to keep a sense of humor about this stuff; I take ribbing from my Mac using friends and I give it right back, all good naturedly. As for supporting one technology but not the other, I don't think that's unprofessional, just unfortunate for those on the outside (like me with Win98; I can't use iTunes).

Now back to what is important, the possible availability of video: I got a response to my email to i2sports. The important points: The schedule is "tentative". They are waiting for "final confirmation" from Cornell Athletics, including whether the video will be "free or pay-per-view".

I'm happy to hear that we may be getting video, and I'm even willing to pay for it, but it begs the questions: If Cornell Athletics is going to make this pay-per-view, why is it not part of or in lieu of the RealONE Pass subscription? Conversely, If Cornell is going to make this free, are they still going to make audio available only for a fee? Either way it strikes me as odd.



Post Edited (10-22-03 00:17)

DisplacedCornellian wrote:


Are you going to bitch about your local auto parts store for not having an EGR valve for your '73 Gremlin in stock? I don't think so. (It's essentially the same thing...sorry mac users. You can replace Gremlin with the foreign luxury automobile of your choice if it makes you feel any better )

Ah. But that is the problem with your analogy. The stream will work fine if you can get around their lazy browser/platform identification scripts. Such scripts are a crutch to unprofessional "web designers" that cannot be bothered to adhere to open standards.

Do I expect the NAPA around the corner to stock a cam shaft for my '74 alfa? Hell, no. But I also expect the Sunoco around the the corner not to fit their pumps with a special adaptor that only alllows domestic cars to fill up, because it is "easier" for the pump jockey at the full serve island.

Imagine pulling into a gas station in your BMW/Audi/Ferrari/whatever, only to discover than you cannot physically get the fuel into your tank, inspite of the fact that the engine would run fine on it if you could only get the fuel into the car. Then imagine that instead of saying "hey, sorry those autoshut off nozzles won't fit the filler neck on your car, you'll have to use the pump around back" the guy smirks at your and says "that's what you get for not buying a real 'merkin car."

Well said, John. Seems to fit this situation exactly. Luckily it appears to be workable this time. We'll see for sure.

I'd guess the percentage of Mac users out there is closer to the percentage of fuel cell users than the percentage of foreign car owners.

How many Sunoco stations can handle fuel cells?

Um, if you wanna talk arithmetically maybe, but the number of fuel cell users are like 0.00001% and Mac is 3%ish on the desktop and 6-7% for laptops. So try again .

Anyway, back to the original topic, which is certainly more important... turns out there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
[Q]Details of the Cornell Hockey webcasts are still tentative. As of last
communication, Cornell Athletics wish us to offer the webcasts for $7 per
game, or $75 for the season pass. I expect that the details will be worked
out before Friday.[/Q]

From Automobile Magazine:

"Imports claimed more than 40% of total US light vehicle sales for the third time this year, an ominous sign for Detroit. Last month [July 2003], the imports sold a record 56.8% of all passenger cars, as well as 48.9% of minivans and 37.2% of SUVs."

Bit of a difference in market share between 4% and 40%.

Yeah, it certainly is, a factor a 10. But to compare it to fuel cells, it's probably a factor of a million. So that's why I said try again , unless you're talking arithmetic, in which case it's a 36% differences versus a ~4% difference.

But I think we could agree that there's a bigger gap between 0.000004% and 4%, than there is between 4% and 40% - at least as far as the industry 'supporting' something.

That's why I think Hayes' analogy was good. If you want to replace 'foreign' with 'BWM', or some company with ~4% market share... yeah, you'd probably be fine. I think the only reason John picked that category to begin with was to use the attitude comparison... "that's what you get for not buying a real 'merkin car."

Don't go into marketing if you think targeting (or writing off) a 4% subset of the total market is comparable to targeting a 40% subset.

And if you think "attitude" is the problem, reread apple's posting above, which says it perfectly. Mac users love to "give" but readily whine when someone gives back.

Look, if BMW came out with a car that required a triangular nozzle to fill its gas tank, how many stations would add a special bank of pumps just to fit them? What percentage of gas stations offer diesel? If you buy a diesel car--attractive though it may be to you--don't whine when your local corner gas station can't fuel it.



Post Edited (10-27-03 07:27)

Al DeFlorio wrote:
Don't go into marketing if you think targeting a 4% subset of the total market is comparable to targeting a 40% subset.

But isn't going out of your way to insult an alienate a 4% subset when you could easily provide a service accessible to everyone stupid, or inconsiderate, or both?

What's also frustrating here is that the company with the lion's share of the OS market benefits from producing software which shuns open standards in order to encourage content producers to help them crush competing OSes.

John T. Whelan '91 wrote:

What's also frustrating here is that the company with the lion's share of the OS market benefits from producing software which shuns open standards in order to encourage content producers to help them crush competing OSes.

Well, why adhere to standard when you can crush everyone else and simply make the standards yourself? Sure, it's not fair to everyone else and sometimes those self-made standards are pretty crappy, but you gotta admit, the power to do whatever the heck you want in that industry would be pretty damn cool.

John, few dislike Microsoft and their methods as much as I do. And I don't care for the wise-ass attitude these guys took toward Mac users, either. (Just like I don't care for the holier-than-thou attitude of too many Mac users toward the Wintel community.) But Microsoft's behavior and relative "goodness" or "badness." isn't what we're discussing here.

John's analogy--much as I like and respect him for so many things--simply distorts Mac's position in the market, and I pointed that out. Maybe the implication that Macs are the BMWs and Ferraris of the personal computing world while Wintel machines are painted as the equivalent of clunky American cars seemed a bit gratuitous and self-serving, too. (See "holier than thou" comment above.)

I'm no fan of closed systems, either. I spent ten years in a division that tried to convince my employer of the need to embrace open systems, but it didn't take until after I'd retired and the new chief from the outside came on-board. Then, it was quickly good-bye OS/2 and hello Linux.

Interestingly, in my view, the most-closed of closed systems is the Mac.

Al, Al, Al...

You really gotta listen to what I say. I never said that there's no difference between 40% and 4%. I merely said it's a lot less significant than between 4% and millionths of a percent. Therefore making John's analogy more accurate than your fuel cell one. That's all I said. I readily admitted that there's a 10 fold difference. I just said your million-fold difference was a bit further off than his 10.

As for the attitude thing... I've had plenty of frank, good natured exchanges about the differences. I have plenty of stories to back up why Windows bugs me beyond all believe (yes, personally experienced). But there's a difference between Mac users saying "Macs rule" and then some PC-centric operation refusing to make minor concessions to support Macs. My (or anyone's) opinion don't prevent you from doing something, where as actions can.

[Q]Interestingly, in my view, the most-closed of closed systems is the Mac.[/Q]
Care to explain? At least, from a practical point of view. If you're talking hardware, yeah, but that doesn't prevent people from doing anything... other than building and selling Macs. Practically, you may have had a point with OS 7, 8, 9, but I don't think it holds anymore. I'd like to hear though.

Sheesh, this is difficult. If you choose to ignore one-trillionth of a total market or one-billionth of a total market or one-millionth of a total market, what difference does it make? None of 'em are significant, even though the last is a million times the first. Four percent is still a relative nit compared with forty percent--which is a sizable chunk of the market at which to aim your product. If 40% of cars were diesels, every gas station would have a diesel pump. But at 4%, I suspect most wouldn't bother.

"If you're talking hardware, yeah..."

When you figure out how to run MacOS without hardware, let us know. Until then--like your local gas utility--Apple's got you where you don't want to be squeezed. See Economics 101--or was it 103?

If you're gonna say that 4% of the market it roughly equivalent to 4-milllionths, then we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.

[Q]When you figure out how to run MacOS without hardware, let us know. Until then--like your local gas utility--Apple's got you where you don't want to be squeezed. See Economics 101--or was it 103?[/Q]
301 .

But you didn't answer what was the main part of my question about that. Which was name what practical difference it makes. I'll give ya one... Apple's hardware products tend to be a step more expensive (at least in initially cost). But anyone who buys a Mac knows that going in and has already decided it's worth it. So if you're argument essentially boils down to "Macs are more expensive", it's been said and admitted thousands of times, and disproven dozens of times in terms of long-term costs / ROI.

MS's closed system however prevents other people from accessing their content, forces people to use MS software to access the content (if it's available), to go through MS databases to use systems (.net / passport), and prevents competitors from competing on even grounds, giving MS the edge on any tool they wish to take over (browsing, media, email, etc). It decreases competition and quality of choice. They even take open standards and corrupt them and promote their corrupted version (Java), so that things that are intended to run on any platform can now only work right on theirs.

Are you saying Apple's system does similar things? Or just that you have to pay a few more bucks up front?

What I said was that an analogy that uses 40% of the market in order to make a point about the market's behavior toward a 4% share is faulty. I'm sorry if you can't grasp that. It is perfectly logical for someone to choose to write off a share of the market as small as 4% in terms of his product and service offering, and to curse him for doing it shows a lack of understanding. John's analogy, much as I love him, stretched the point beyond reality.

Getting into a Mac vs. Windows argument is as pointless as arguing religion, and I haven't the time or interest. You pays your money and takes your choice. Windows choosers buy a system and get on with life. Mac choosers too often become obsessed with defending their choice to the complete boredom of the rest of us.

"But anyone who buys a Mac knows that going in and has already decided it's worth it."

And anyone who buys a Mac knows that they are in a 4% minority and will be treated as such by the marketplace. The rest of us don't want to hear their whining when they experience it.

Al DeFlorio wrote:
It is perfectly logical for someone to choose to write off a share of the market as small as 4% in terms of his product and service offering, and to curse him for doing it shows a lack of understanding. John's analogy, much as I love him, stretched the point beyond reality.

See, this is exactly why I hate the 'net trend of arguing using analogies. I never intended to make any statement whatsoever about market share. You guys inferred that one completely on your own. My sole intent was to attempt to illustrate the unsolicited condescension and derision that is frequently directed toward nonconformists that buck the norm.

Al DeFlorio wrote:
Getting into a Mac vs. Windows argument is as pointless as arguing religion, and I haven't the time or interest. You pays your money and takes your choice.

I completely agree. In the last month, I found myself just as irritated by the silly faculty member that literally tried to high-five as when she discovered I owned an iBook as I was by the clueless department admin that felt the need to trash the macintosh when she saw a G4 install cd in my hand. Computers are a tool. Nothing more. I don't feel the need to validate my existance in this world with my choice of computing platform.

However, that having been said, I assume you can see how the repeated dismissal of any non-MS platform due to some provincial bigotry could be rather irksome. Not that this excuses the chip so many macintosh users seem to carry around, but it does become somewhat tiresome. I've long been a supporter of the any browser campaign [www.anybrowser.org] and open standards [www.w3.org]. Coding a website to one browser and one platform is just plain lazy at best and more likely is a sign of incompetence.

If a website can't afford to support the macintosh or linux with their autoconfigure scripts, that's fine with me. They can just set the mime type correctly on their server, give me the raw stream and let me configure my own media player. But to pop up an insulting message is just childish. In spite of my hatred for argument via analogy and at risk of beating a dead horse, I must return to the car analogy one last time. As the owner of a diesel, I'd suggest that, the former is akin to making me use the old non-pay at the pump diesel pump out back while the latter is like the 19 year old pump jockey sneering at me while saying "why'd you buy a diesel. don't you know diesels are dirty and slow..." The first is acceptable given the state of the market while the second is ignorant and unprofessional.

Of course, I like 5+ hours of battery life on my laptop and 600+ miles on $20 worth of fuel, so what do I know....

Cheers.

John



Post Edited (10-28-03 13:00)

John E Hayes '98 '00 wrote:

The first is acceptable given the state of the market while the second is ignorant and unprofessional.
Post Edited (10-28-03 13:00)

As I've said, I completely agree with both observations.

Have you seen the new Prius, John?

Notice I'd let it drop too... glad we agree on the fundamentals. Al and I got into a discussion on a detail that avoided the main point.

Also, my next car'll be a hybrid ... though that's a few years off, hopefully 5ish .

Al DeFlorio wrote:

Have you seen the new Prius, John?

I've *never* like Toyotas but damn, they nailed it in the the 2nd generation Prius. Ugly as sin, but 0-60 in under 10 seconds while getting 61/50 city/hwy in a car bigger than a Passat? That's some serious engineering. A Cd of .26 doesn't hurt.

Of course, I'm still pining for BMW to sell the 330D in the US. 220hp, 0-60 in under 6.7 s and the thing still gets 40+ mpg.

good lord. You people take your computers too seriously. To call the pop up insulting and childish seems a bit strong to me. Can't anyone take a joke in this world anymore?

Or are we all become far too PC??

[Q]Or are we all become far too PC??[/Q]

At the risk of fanning the flames, no - we've all become far too Mac....ba-da-crash!

IT'S A JOKE, PEOPLE! If anyone responds seriously to this, I'm going to start a petition for an ignore list...

DisplacedCornellian wrote:
To call the pop up insulting and childish seems a bit strong to me.

How about irritating and redundant? I know I'm using Mozilla (Explorer isn't even made for the operating system I get the most use from); I don't need to be reminded of it every time I access their homepage.

I e-mailed the (incompetent) chief architect.. and told him something along the lines of: Your web page works with Mozilla just fine, please remove the incredibly annoying pop-up.

Of course, even despite this, its a pretty shoddy looking web page. I think its a bit ironic considering one of the excuses Cornell used to not used their alumni resources was that they wanted something 'more professional'.

At least, for me, I'll get video this year, which is nice. I wasn't willing to pay the $7 or so for audio, but I am willing to pay for video. In my mind this reduces their Major DQ to maybe a double minor (for unsportsmanlike conduct, and Alumni patronizing).

I saw in todays Ithaca Journal that the fee for the video feed is $5 per game or $60 for all 16 home games.

Jason N '95 wrote:

Rich Gourley wrote:

I saw in todays Ithaca Journal that the fee for the video feed is $5 per game or $60 for all 16 home games.
[/b]

The quality of the feed better be good.

For the record I would think $3 or $4 is more reasonable. If the feed is GREAT then I will be OK with $5.

I guess these idiots think that Dell PC's or Sony PC's or Toshiba PC's don't count as qualifying hardware. Last time I checked, Intel made the chips for PC's, and IBM made the chips for Macs.


Minimum Viewing Requirements
Cable modem, DSL, T1 or Ethernet capable of at least 384 Kbps download speeds
Click here to test your speed
Internet Explorer 5.0
Windows Media Player 9.0
IBM PC Pentium II 400 MHz
with 64 MB RAM