YouTube Begins Live Streaming Trials 90
An anonymous reader writes "YouTube is running a (very) brief trial of their new live streaming platform: 'This new platform integrates live streaming directly into YouTube channels; all broadcasters need is a webcam or external USB/FireWire camera. Included in the test is a "Live Comments" module which lets you engage with the broadcaster and the broader YouTube community. For the purpose of the trial, this offering will only be available today and tomorrow. Based on the results of this initial test, we'll evaluate rolling out the platform more broadly to our partners worldwide.'"
dayum (Score:4, Interesting)
Places like Stickam, Livestream, USTREAM, etc are likely not happy about this...I'm actually a bit suprised it took Youtube/Google this long to wade into the live streaming waters.
Re:dayum (Score:4, Funny)
"wade into the live streaming waters".
So like Chatroulette on Youtube?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Cue the first live sex, suicide & killing on YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
If people just want to use youtube as a database site and pump out their own content with some p2p bandwidth sharing
Re: (Score:2)
More like taking your laptop or netbook where they're playing live music. I'm sure a lot of musicians will love this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe uStream would welcome Google as they are likely to take the full force of the 'illegal' streaming community?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As I was telling a policeman I know last week (Score:4, Insightful)
Get used to the idea that every interaction you have with the public will be on the internet. One day, YouTube will support live streaming from telephones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
that way Rodney King can stream his next beat down
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
I like that idea. Maybe it would stop police abuses if they knew you were streaming their public acts to your friends, or to your hard drive.
Of course police always ask you to turn-off the camera, because then they can beat the sdhit otu fo you. As they did to a Baptist pastor in southern Arizona. His crime? They accused him of having marijuana and he said "That's nuts," so they drug him out of his car and beat him into a bloody mess. Naturally they found NO marijuana or any other contraband, so they
Re: (Score:2)
Professor Gates showed them his ID. They had no cause to arrest him.
"The police acted stupidly" is one of those few times I agreed with Øbama.
Re:As I was telling a policeman I know last week (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, USTREAM (et al) already have the live streaming video option for mobile phones.
Re: (Score:2)
JTV already has streaming from Android phones. Came out of beta last week I believe. Maybe week before.
Re: (Score:1)
Ustream.tv has had this capability for iPhone, Android and Nokia for about a year or so. I use the iPhone apps all the time.
http://www.ustream.tv/mobile [ustream.tv]
Re: (Score:1)
Get used to the idea that every interaction you have with the public will be on the internet.
Good luck buying food or anything else without seeing a human. Fats food and other restaraunts, grocery stores, even the UPS guy and pizza delivery guy are human. I have no idea why your comment was modded "insightful," since it shows little insight at all.
swing and a Miss.... (Score:1, Informative)
The parent meant all of the officers interactions with the public will find their way onto the web after or even during those interactions. Big Brother working for the people instead of against them...
Not that Big Brother is a good idea anyways but at least in this role its useful-ish.
Streaming trials. (Score:5, Funny)
Whose trial do we get to see first?
Re: (Score:2)
court is the most boring thing to watch
i've done jury duty and watched Court TV. it's like watching trees grow. I'll take the law and order or the 30 minute court shows any day over the real thing
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that might be a good thing. It might disabuse people of the ridiculous notion that real life should be just like CSI...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what part of my sig has you confused. All of those statements are pretty obviously true.
Re: (Score:2)
Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy (Score:3, Funny)
Service guarantees citizenship! Would you like to know more?
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:1)
No Service....no vote.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Starship Troopers was a pile of crap. Was nothing like the actual book, except the title. Although I did enjoy the naked shower scene. There's just not enough toplessness in movies or television today.
Re: (Score:1)
Boobies, giant bugs, explosions and I genuinely think Vehoven misunderstood the book to a sufficient degree that the movie wasn't philosophically bereft.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah well.... I'm glad Babylon 5 won the Hugo Award rather than Troopers. If I recall correctly, Starship ended dead last (5th place out of 5 nominees). As for Verhoeven, he said at the time he was mirroring Triumph of the Will, the old propaganda film. Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with Robert Heinlein's original purpose when he wrote his masterpiece.
I don't understand why movie and television writers have such a difficult time adapting SF novels/short stories to the screen. They almost
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, Hollywood seems to confuse the 'science fiction' genre with the 'action' and 'horror' genres. Science fiction books tend to be wordy, where wordiness doesn't usually translate well to screen. so, in place of drawn out SciFi explanations, they add boobies and explosions. This can make for an entertaining movie, but not really a SciFi movie.
The only true scifi movie i can even think of is 2001: and even that takes several viewings (and maybe even reading the novel) to 'get it'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually read the book, and enjoyed the movie more. Yes they're completely different. Yes the book is good. But that's one of my all time favorite movies ever.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube vs Ustream (Score:2)
This is a Good Thing! (Score:2)
Stream away - when 99.9% of Social Media is crap, it won't be worth the time to find that 0.01%. Problem solved.
Google, you got my vote!
Re:This is a Good Thing! (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, there's absolutely nothing whatsoever on the web that you can use to find interesting content among huge amounts of dross. No sir. The only way to look for content is by random trial and error.
Seriously, no-one's forcing you to watch Youtube videos. At least, I assume not. If they are it's probably cruel and unusual punishment.
Oh, sorry, is this your lawn I'm standing on?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is a Good Thing! (Score:5, Interesting)
How would nuking Facebook and Twitter be a bad thing?
Members of my family would go back to forwarding me spam e-mails about how we need to build a giant wall between Texas and Mexico instead of posting on Facebook on the topic.
As things stand today, they're almost only sending me e-mail about things that are actually important. Don't send me back to those dark ages.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be amazed at how quickly people stop sending you stupid stuff when you contact 50 of their friends to say "this is retarded."
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you didn't do like I did- look at ALL the "To:" addresses, and send them all an email explaining that they should ignore the sender's message because it's just another hoax/scam/urban legend, and provide links to snopes, etc.
You'd be amazed at how quickly people stop sending you stupid stuff when you contact 50 of their friends to say "this is retarded."
Sadly, I've done exactly that. Dozens of times. In a few cases my mother-in-law checked Snopes (because I had drilled it into her head so
Re: (Score:2)
But your mom has nothing on Canada's former Minister of Defense, who fell for the "don't flash your lights" [snopes.com] urban legend and issued an official warning. What a moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Now a few more people check the info out before forwarding that Bill Gates will pay them $2,450 to forward an email to 10 people, or that you shouldn't flash your headlights because they'll come after you and cut your head off or that antiperspirant causes breast cancer.
Or do you think it's okay to let 50 women, plus everyone THEY contacted, believe that they've exposed themselves to a higher risk of breast cancer?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, many of the millions of people who have built up networks of contacts there might be a bit upset. But hey, what's that against your suffering from knowing that they exist, even if no-one forces you to use them?
Really, chill out. You don't like social websites. Fine. That doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing we have TV, radio DJs, and friends to tell us what to watch. They spend the time searching, and I just look at whatever they recommend. That seems to work well for me.
That reminds me - Any such thing as radio stations that only stream public domain music?
Naked $$$ (Score:2, Insightful)
Hello, my friend! Watch n8ked women live on your Computer $creen -- now on U-tupe. Sex show wet show live XXX
Buy herbal vi8gra on the our U-tube channel!
Read Another Way (Score:2)
At first glance, the headline could be interpreted as "YouTube begins live streaming of court cases". That would be pretty earth-shattering, huh?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Then you could have users vote on who they think is the best-dressed Juror.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Think of the social networking!
${PersonName} has just sentenced someone to death lol
Re: (Score:2)
${DefendentName} dislikes this
.
.
.
${DefendentName} says: Do Not Want!
${DefendentName} says: no, srsly, i rly dont wanna die, just couldn't resist the lolz
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
how much upload do you need? (Score:2)
how much upload do you need?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've streamed video as low as Dialup speeds (50k). The sound is bad (20 kbit/s) and the video is only 6 frames per second, but it does work. No idea what youtube requires, but I'm betting there's no minimum just like now there's no minimum standard for uploaded vids.
Aside - cwtv.com streams video as low as 128k (ISDN speeds) - if only all TV sites offered that same flexibility instead of requiring 1 Mbit/s minimum.
Re: (Score:2)
641
What about...webex, livemeeting, fuzemeeting.... (Score:1)
This is a very interesting move for Google and I am quite surprised it has taken this long to implement. Above this are comments mentioning live porn, suicides, killings, etc. For many those will be the immediate sensationalistic concerns, but in time I think the bigger story will be what develops around this that will allow companies to get for free what they pay for with the other services like those mentioned in the title.
Copyright (Score:2)
With all the issues they had with Viacom I would think they are going to be somewhat hesitant about this. Besides the danger of this sinking quickly into an exhibitionist paradise like chatroulette they also have to worry about people streaming live concerts/events from their phones. I was able to catch bits and pieces of Phish concerts this summer on ustream. Just wait until YouTube is "caught" streaming some big name band or comedian with a copyright ax to grind. It will be sue-Google season all over agai
When Will Streaming Hit The Wall? (Score:1, Insightful)
I've got nothing against this particular service. It's fine and there should be some means of amateur broadcast. But, this is one more streaming mechanism in what seems to be a growing torrent of streaming media (pun may have been intended). Whether it's YouTube, or CNN or NetFlix, Apple TV, Boxxee, TVs with built in streaming widgets, etc. all the buzz is about streaming.
But, the reality is that unicast (or even multicast) streaming over the internet is extremely inefficient. In fact, there simply is not e
Re: (Score:2)
How do you think you will push the backbone and critical points to upgrade their networks to cope with such capacity without first pushing the limit further and further?
And to say that the Internet can't handle such things is junk that was disproved about ten or more years ago when everyone got off their modems and jumped onto broadband. iPlayer is the UK's most popular website, in terms of Gb's or traffic, and basically streams dozens of channels 24/7 including archive footage and HD. ITV Player does the
Re: (Score:2)
You've made the critical (and silly) assumption that everything has to be streamed from a single location (i.e. no local caches or geo-distributed traffic - unicast may suggest that but, in that case, nobody sensible ever uses unicast in that sense anyway - my Youtube vids don't come from the one server that holds that one particular video via one IP route) and that, if you account for local traffic, the Internet isn't *ALREADY* pushing that amount of traffic around, and you're also looking at it as a cumul
Oh great (Score:2)
Ding Ding Ding (Score:1)
They streamed the India Premier Cricket League... (Score:2)
"YouTube is running a (very) brief trial of their new live streaming platform: 'This new platform integrates live streaming directly into YouTube channels; all broadcasters need is a webcam or external USB/FireWire camera. Included in the test is a "Live Comments" module which lets you engage with the broadcaster and the broader YouTube community. For the purpose of the trial, this offering will only be
Re: (Score:1)
For some reason, Slashdot rejected my submission back then
It's the whim of the firehose. I've had quite a few stories posted, but then there are those I've submitted that were rejected only to show up by another submitter days or even weeks later.
I'm pretty sure I watched the cricket on youtube (Score:2)
a while ago, which had to be streaming since it was close to live (I'm sure there was a hefty delay).
Doesn't look like it'll be available for all? (Score:2)
Note how it states "partners" not "consumers" or "users". It doesn't look to me like there's any immediate intent to make this a generally available streaming service.
If I'm wrong... it may never be safe to visit YouTube again.
Is it just me or... (Score:2)
... does the idea of just needing a webcam and to go to a web page in your browser to stream video to the world seem completely wrong?
However it does it, it just doesn't seem right that the browser have access to my webcam.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realise the browser doesn't just have free access to your webcam don't you? You have to give it permission first. If it does, you have some serious security issues you need to fix.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, even with permission, it seems to me to be wrong that the browser, that portal out to the wild west of the internet, have the power to do this stuff. With the history of browser based exploits factored in it just seems wrong.
But then I guess this capability has been there for a long time now.
Re: (Score:2)
The browser itself doesn't really have the capability to use the webcam. It's the scripts on the page you're on and locally installed drivers and programs that give the browser access. This is really no different than running any program that has access to the webcam. As far as browser based exploits go, unless you have the drivers and software installed and proper permissions set on your computer, there is really nothing the browser can do access it, exploit or no. Turn off your webcam and set it so it
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that anyone can stream anything they damned well please seems completely right to me. It's another step in the direction of you and me having the influence only big media companies had before, just like the internet and computers made the record labels obsolete (even though they don't know they're obsolete).
Want your own newscast? Now you have it. As to having your webcam under your browser's control, it isn't. It's under your own control. This is a good thing; how many people could you stream to a
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, no argument there, and I realise I'm behind the time here, but my objection was that it was *in the browser*.
Trials? (Score:1)
I thought they were going to be taking on Court TV. Darn.