Orwell.TV Blog

Orwell TV Version 2.0

2006-08-28T21:59:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

“ORWELL TV ANNOUNCES NEW VIDEO SHOW FEATURES”

NEW YORK, NY – MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2006 – Among Orwell TV’s first featured shows are “Cool Hunting,” “Command N” and “It’s Jerry Time!” “Cool Hunting,” created by tech veteran and brand expert Josh Rubin, exposes all the latest trends in the worlds of style, fashion, gadgets, art and design. “Command N,” hosted by Amber MacArthur (G4techTV, Discovery Channel), Mike Lazazzera and Jeff MacArthur, is a weekly show that reports the latest news in technology. “It’s Jerry Time!” is an Emmy Award nominated animated comedy series created by Jerry and Orrin Zucker that follows the tradition of comedy pioneered by icons like Charles Bukowski, Larry David and Harvey Pekar. New episodes of these shows will be updated and made available as they are produced. Orwell TV was created in 2005 by filmmaker/writer Adario Strange. Visit Orwell TV weekly for show updates and other new shows scheduled to debut on the Orwell TV programming line-up.

“I don’t have the 10 hours-a-day necessary to plow through YouTube and Google Video to find something worth watching. This works better...”
—SOME BUSY PERSON WHO DIDN’T LEAVE THEIR NAME

www.OrwellTV.com

filed under:iptv, internet television,revision3, new york press, charlie+rose, youtube

YouTube's New Ads

2006-08-13T14:27:00.000-07:00

So I guess that after the Charlie Rose interview, the YouTube boys realized how absurd it sounded to tell Charlie their money making method was advertising when the only ads they had on the site were Google Ads (Google Video being one of their top competitors). So--shazam!!--suddenly this weekend YouTube has all these new banner ads all over the site, and there are even movie trailer videos with tiny ad strips above them. It all looks a little clumsy, so the question is: was this planned and rolled out strategically, or was this a kneejerk reaction to all the Internet video stories last week? Either way,suddenly, YouTube is a little uglier...but maybe more profitable?

filed under:iptv, internet television, new york press, charlie+rose, youtube,google video

The (big) Dawn Of Internet TV Arrives

2006-08-11T20:58:00.000-07:00

I've been off the digital grid for a few months in relation to video, but I've been at play behind the scenes. A lot has changed in the last few months. PodGuide.TV gave up the ghost, YouTube has been discovered by the rest of the world (and started taking AOL ads), the Rocketboom gang rose and fell spectacularly, and Ted Turner and Amazon have launched online-only video shows. I wrote a too brief story about the current state, and recent history, of video online for this week's New York Press cover.

What's interesting to me is that days after my cover story hit the streets, the Washington Post, and Charlie Rose jumped all over this story. The cat is officially out of the bag.

What I didn't say in the article are my (gut-based) predictions...
-Revision3 will relaunch a new version in the next 30-60 days.
-Similarly, Digg will unveil a video ranking/voting system shortly.
-YouTube will sell before the end of the year for much less than the reported $1billion.
-While major networks scramble to offer exclusive online-only video content, several independent online video channels(sites) will emerge as the hot destinations for online viewers.
-A new group of services, not in existence today, will emerge to service/augment this new market. What kind of services? Heh, heh... I'm not giving away all my cookies.

filed under:iptv, internet television,revision3, new york press, charlie+rose, youtube

Laporte, iTunes & Internet TV Distribution

2006-03-13T09:55:00.000-08:00

No new digital destination is worth it's salt without pissing off at least a couple of people right off the bat (this post isn't "meant" to piss anyone off, but...).

There's an advantage to being obsessed with Internet video. It means that while many people are content to watch recent episodes of shows, the video obsessed are compelled to dig into the archives of various programs to see how they started out and how a particular show has evolved. I happened to be digging through the video archives of CommandN when I came up with what amounts to gold for Orwell TV, because it features one of the top dogs of Internet TV and podcasts, Leo Laporte, essentially explaining one of the reasons I came up with Orwell TV. He doesn't mention our site specifically, actually the video clip below is from about 8 months ago (when the Orwell eyeball was still closed).

First some background...

When Leo announced his new show MacBreak, I was excited because he's a TV veteran who knows television production, has the resources, and was tackling a subject I love (Apple products). But when I went to the MacBreak site, I clicked on the watch episode button, and was greeted with a huge pop-up warning me I was on my way to iTunes. While I am by no means an iTunes hater, I prefer to watch Internet TV via download, or an open environment, rather than a proprietary environment (otherwise I can just turn on the broadcast TV set in my home). My attitude is part aesthetic preference and part philosophical. More on that later. So I'm there at the MacBreak pop-up, and I'm so excited to see the show, I decide it's worth watching in iTunes this one time. But nothing happens. I'm not re-directed to iTunes, or given an executable button to click to go there. The pop-up just sits there useless. This happened on a brand new Mac running the latest version of OS X, running the latest build of Firefox, manned by a long time Mac user. Who knows what horrors Windows users experienced (how can you become an Apple Switcher if you can't see the show?). And this was the only option (at the time) for watching the MacBreak show.

Weeks later, this seemed to be corrected, and the script worked and took me to iTunes. Not a place I plan to watch much video at, but more on that later. Weeks after this happened, I went back to see another episode of MacBreak (which is looking damn good so far), and lo and behold, the iTunes link didn't work! No pop-up, nothing. Just a button that teases you by darkening when you scroll over it. Finally, I found an obscure direct link on Leo's TWIT blog that was submitted by one of the posters. I also found in this thread, a good amount of comments screaming to Leo for a direct link to the show rather than being forced to visit iTunes. These are my people (secret handshake engaged).

The very reason Internet TV is so exciting is because it allows anyone to become a distributor of content, and organically resists proprietary closed networks. So whether it's iTunes (which can be fun), or the Democracy Player (also cool), attempting to force content creators to "only" distribute their content through your network/distribution device is antithetical to what Internet TV is all about. I think the best example is a network like Revision3, where they give you so many options for downloading their content, you're persuaded to watch some shows that you might not otherwise give a try. They make it easy. And how do you get to their content? Just visit their website. Simple. Sure you can also get their stuff on iTunes, but if you aren't an iTunes drone, you've got many alternatives that allow you to watch their shows. This is why on Orwell TV we decided against creating a destination for you to watch video, because we think it should be the show producer's choice as to the manner in which they want to distribute their content. And because technology changes so fast, and formats appear and disappear even faster, it only makes sense to let producers and viewers make their own choices. It's much simpler and cleaner to just let viewers visit a show's site directly and choose if they want to sign up for the latest Feedburner, iTunes, Technorati, Flickr, blahblah whatszitmadoodle of the moment. In the meantime, for Orwell TV (reviews and links - period), simple rocks. So back to Leo. After my MacBreak experience, imagine my surprise when I traveled back in time and found him trashing iTunes on CommandN!

In case you don't have time to watch the video excerpt, I'll attempt to condense the points he makes (Leo can chin check me at any time on the details, no harm no foul). Leo points out that:

-iTunes is too secretive. Pod/vodcasters don't know what's going on behind the scenes on various important issues.

-iTunes is "the only thing that counts...", but it shouldn't be that way.

-iTunes gives preference to big media, and those few pod/vodcasters with deep pockets.

-Apple is a "500lb gorilla" that messed up the space and is leaving out huge swathes of the podcast community because you need an account (read: give Steve "Disney/Pixar/Apple" Jobs your credit card information) to sign up your pod/vodcast.

He says more about bittorrent issues and iTunes, as well as bandwidth. All in all, Leo makes some "great" points against using Apple's iTunes... Then, months later, he releases an iTunes-only video show. ??? So what happened? I'm guessing some combination of having deeper pockets than most Internet show producers, plus an old media background (i.e. stay close to the big boys), added to the fact that the show is about Macs (which to me is the very reason why it should be widely available on non-Mac formats/platforms).

What this all boils down to is that the Internet TV community is shaping up into two camps. Those who crave the validation and exposure of proprietary networks like iTunes, and those who prefer to maintain control of their distribution by opening it up to various formats available on their own site. Who is right? Well in Internet terms "right" is an tricky word to use. It might be better to discuss which methods will last and which will fade. Considering that closed networks generally move toward more exclusivity and velvet ropes, something the Internet community has always resisted, I'm rooting for the open distribution/exposure platforms.

And the most open distribution channel an Internet show producer has is their own website. Simple links to websites are still the most popular way Internet users get their content. That’s why Orwell TV offers simple links and little else. As Internet distribution/media format trends change, and the next iteration of Bittorrent, Theora, etc. debuts, show producers need the ability to deliver their shows in the way that best suits them, and their viewers. This allows everyone to control their own creations, from delivery to content. This is good for viewers, advertisers, and show producers. Hopefully, the future will bear this out. For now, I think it'll probably be a cold day in Cupertino before you see Mickey Mouse cartoons served up alongside a SuicideGirls striptease on iTunes.

Full Disclosure: 1) Weeks ago we contacted Amber Mac for an interview on Orwell TV. 2) We did not contact Leo for this post due to fear that he would charm us into changing out opinion.

-Adario Strange
Orwell TV
"watching FOR you"

LINK TO FULL CommandN SHOW REFERENCED

filed under:iptv, internet television,revision3, itunes, commandn, leo laporte

Digg, Software Cloning, Value Propositions

2006-03-04T23:56:00.000-08:00

VC veteran Fred Wilson blogs that BubbleGeneration tech pundit Umair Haque is wrong about VCs. The discussion gets somewhat muddled on Umair's blog comments section, but one tangential comment beneath the post caught my attention.

Phil Jones said,
"VCs are only the solution when money is the problem. Are you telling me Digg wouldn't let WSJ run an own brand a copy of their software *very* cheaply if they came knocking?"

Here's the thing...WSJ doesn't need Digg. In terms of unique software execution, Digg is already old news, as their entire PHP "digg" system has been copied and is spreading across the web like wild fire for free.

If potential investors become aware of this, the software aspect of the deal becomes immediately devalued. But that's okay. There will always be a new Flickr, a new Craig's List, a new YouTube, and a new Digg. The real value in Digg is Kevin Rose and his ability to create community, and exposure for that community. Anyone can build a cool website, or pay someone to build it. Not everyone can build a sticky destination. That's the real value of Digg. Remember the Weblogs Inc. deal with Jason Calacanis. Not much was made of this point, but it was later revealed that Blogsmith, the blogging software powering the blog network, was not part of the deal rumored to be around $25 million. So AOL essentially payed for content, community, and vision, and left the software on the shelf. They paid for what Jason is good at, generating attention for his properties and an ability to understand the protean nature of the Internet.

Meanwhile, Kevin has gone on record that he has no plans to sue sites copying the Digg PHP system/site architecture, so it's open season on Digg for anyone who wants to clone it. The software is in the wild and ANYONE can now quickly and easily build their own Digg over the weekend... And they are.

http://www.yigg.de/
http://www.sevensurfers.com/
http://www.livedigg.com/
http://www.smarkwire.com/
http://www.stockdigg.com/
http://www.indianpad.com/

But, as Kevin probably understands, unless these cloned sites can generate attention and community, they're so much ghost towns in the ether.

-Adario

filed under: digg, weblogs inc., fred wilson, bubble generation

The Hows And Whys Of Web Apps

2006-02-27T07:46:00.000-08:00

Quick post, but I needed to get this out before I forget, or get too busy. This is a lot of "insider baseball talk" so turn around now if you aren't a web geek who knows the players, I don't have time right now to give didactic linkage. As I've been working with Ning and their great staff, I've also been doing a lot of blog reading about the company since its launch last October. The company has taken it's share of critical skepticism. But it's interesting how short some people's memories are. Not long ago, people poo-pooed any website with a "yournamehere.blogspot.com" or "mypersonalblog.typepad.com" address. Today, there are many bloggers using Ev's software/hosting (now Google's) to run their revenue generating/service-oriented blogs. It's a simple, easy solution that works. You can can either set up shop there and stay, or use it as a free proof-of-concept testing ground before you migrate your idea to a larger platform. Either way, Blogger works, fast, easy and free.

In fact, one of the popular Internet TV shows on the Internet, CommandN, is only accessible by visiting: commandn.typepad.com. On top of that, in addition to direct downloads, they also offer links to their show via YouTube. A perfect example of a company (yes, they make money) using several web apps to get the job done. Right now, to me, Ning is looking like the next tier evolution of a Blogger-like community & web-based application -- if you can imagine what the next level of what Pyra Labs might have developed given more time and resources (before acquisition). Based on a lot of comments, I can tell that some people who consider themselves pretty savvy, actually don't immediately and intuitively get what they are seeing with Ning, and for them, it's ahead of its time in its meta-next-web dynamic.

I think part of that is that a lot of insiders won't admit that they are still salty at Marc Andreesen for being the "golden boy" who was constantly lavished with praise when Netscape ruled. Also, because of that successful past, some are expecting a super-home run right out of the gate with the new venture, or they'll rush to call it, and him, a failure. Managing expectations can be a job unto itself when producing a start-up. The other part of it is...I think you have a certain group of tech insiders who trade in lofty tech/media memes, but lack the nimble hustle imperative to independently think outside the box. This is why, although there are a lot of people in the blog/web2.0/etc. space who I admire and respect, I generally prefer to stay out of the fray so I can maintain objectivity, irreverence, and nimbleness. If you're part of the popular people's club, it can be hard to think outside of the established parameters of the hive mind. Sure you won't get invited to a lot of the cool parties, but for people like me, "this" is the party. I can't guarantee that I'll keep the Orwell TV site linked to Marc and Gina's creation, but aside from that issue, I'm impressed with the ambitious mission Ning is undertaking. It takes cojones to think that big.

Okay, maybe that post wasn't so quick after all...

-Adario Strange

[note: this is a group blog, so some of the people working with me on Orwell TV will also post at some point if they feel the need, hence the signing of my name on my particular posts.]

filed under:iptv, internet television,ning,web 2.0, marc andreesen

The Story Of Orwell TV

2006-02-20T21:32:00.000-08:00

Let's just dive into what this is all about.

Early last year (2005), I started brainstorming about more new ideas for online video. I had already experimented with a couple of online TV ideas back in 2001. Simply put, the web wasn't ready for online video, and you can't fight the organic direction of the web. But my thoughts on online video have always been simmering in the background waiting for the pipes to catch up with the content. So in '05 it became clear that online video had finally come of age when Flickr-like sites for video started popping up.

I immediately started putting my feelers out to colleagues in the entertainment world to gauge their interest and fluency in the emerging area. Then more brainstorming. A lot of brainstorming. And no good brainstorming happens without a very healthy helping of research. Long story short, I will definitely be producing some original online video content, but I found that my research (watching online TV) was so much fun, I became a bit obsessed. Like an addicted fiend I'd scour the web for hours looking for new videos. But I wasn't looking for those cute short videos you often see on YouTube (they are great though). No, I was obsessed with finding actual shows. Fully produced, independent online TV shows that you couldn't find on the major networks. Why? Simply because the more I looked, the more I was surprised at how entertained I was by the TV shows (or Internet TV) I found.

And what was most surprising was that quality wasn't always defined by production value. Sometimes the sheer personality of the individuals on screen took the show to where it needed to be. Needless to say, my obsession only grew. In the background, I began to shift my brainstorming from "what kind of show should we do" into, "how can I serve this emerging space"? That's when the idea for Orwell TV first took shape.

I spent several months jotting down ideas, mentally playing with service ideas, etc. Mostly I had a very general idea for supporting the Internet TV space "in some way". It wasn't until a recent trip to London that I had the "ah ha" moment. When I travel, I always make it point to watch the local television to get an idea of how the locals see themselves, or at least want to see themselves. It's a nice cultural snapshot into the psyche of a country. Amazingly, in England, almost half the shows on television are American. Pretty disappointing. If you are a fan of "The IT Crowd," you should know that 1)it got slammed by local British press and 2)it's not representative of most of British television offerings. You're more likely to meet a Brit who loves "24" than you are to meet one who raves about the new "Doctor Who" series.

So after a few days in London waking up to American shows, I connected to a WiFi node and started downloading episodes of one of my favorite online shows DiggNation. This then became a ritual. Everyday, I'd wake up, download two archived episodes of DiggNation, and watch them while I read the British papers and ate my horrid British breakfast. (note: UK food still sucks, but the incredible people there more than make up for it.) Towards the end of my trip I realized, wow, I traveled to another part of the globe and I still looked to get my Internet TV fix. I had actually turned off the traditional television, filled with expensive crews, sets, producers, etc., to watch an independent "television show" which probably cost something like $5 dollars to make.

This was a new experience. I probably would have watched even more if I'd had a simple guide to point me to more shows. That's when I discovered what was missing. A simple guide with reviews, not tied into the proprietary commerce store of Apple's iTunes (or any other online store service), where I could specifically look for independently produced shows without wading through online versions of existing broadcast TV network shows. A place where indie Internet TV show producers didn't have to give Apple their credit card information to simply list their new show for exposure to the viewing public online (a growing source of discontent on the web). I wanted an Internet TV guide. Not a guide integrated with a video download store (conflict of interest), not a guide integrated with a YouTube-like service (too many IP concerns), just a guide to what's out there; a tool dedicated to nothing but that one service. That's when a sense of urgency kicked in, and I decided I needed to get moving from brainstorm, to actual execution.

One of the most over-used cliches in the world of business is the guy scribbling an idea on a cocktail napkin, saving it, and showing it to the world as the foundation of what he's put together. I'm embarrassed to say that this is exactly what happened to me on my British Airways (best airline ever) flight back to New York. I was trying to get some sleep, but I couldn't, my mind was buzzing. I finally gave up and started scribbling furiously on any piece of paper I could find. I may actually scan the image later so you can see the inspired chicken scratch. What resulted was the basic skeleton of an online guide to Internet TV.

Among the list of things I jotted down was "find a database software solution". I had built a couple of online services based on PHP with two different partners before, and I generally came away disappointed by the situations for various reasons. So this time I wanted to find a solution myself that was "off the shelf," something that would be easy to implement with little to no programming involved. I honestly didn't expect to find exactly what I wanted, so I began to temper my excitement with the thought of more nights of PHP manuals. Later that night I was surprised to find several options for an off the shelf PHP solution doing exactly what I needed. I eventually decided on using Ning not so much for the applications, but because they had the option of hosting content. The idea I had for Orwell TV was shaping up to be content/user intensive, and it would be a good idea to avoid making a big hosting commitment until I knew exactly what I had on my hands. Right now it's still just an experiment, so this is going to essentially be the public beta for the rudimentary idea. Depending on how things work out there, I'll either keep it there or eventually move everything to my own servers. That said, I have to add a note of sincere thanks to the Yoz, Gina, and Phil who have been very helpful in communicating directly with me regarding various issues. I'd love to buy them all a drink if they ever make a group trip to New York from their Palo Alto, California digs.

So all the pieces are in place, and now I'm just working on the actual site architecture and content philosophy. It's pretty hard on both ends. Technically, in this "web 2.0" (complete rubbish) time, everyone yells loudly if you don't have all the latest AJAX doodads in your first iteration. But I've learned that bells and whistles do not a great service make. Having a simple mission, and a simple implementation is often the winning way (tip of the hat to superdude Craig Newmark). So I aggressively decided to do away with any but the most essential doodads and take the lumps/advice from users as it comes. The content was even harder. Internet TV is a very new emerging market. It's still not clear to many people what it is, or that it even exists. The answers to the content questions are so detailed, that I've decided to make them a part of a soon to be released FAQ rather than put it here. Suffice to say, Orwell TV was built for the indie shows online first. Nothing is excluded, but the independents are our first consideration on all levels.

There you have it, the story of Orwell TV. I'm sure there are some obvious questions/anecdotes I've neglected to mention here, and when they come up I'll definitely post them. In the mean time, let's watch some Internet TV.

-Adario Strange
Orwell TV
"watching FOR you"

filed under:iptv, internet television, digg, ning

Orwell TV - FAQ

2006-02-10T14:25:00.000-08:00

Why are you guys doing this?
Because we love Internet video shows and wanted a simple, open guide to help us find cool new shows. We didn’t see what we wanted, so we created it. It’s our hope that Orwell TV will be helpful to other viewers like us, and helpful in some way to the growth of independent Internet TV shows in general. Right now it’s purely an experiment as open to change as the Internet itself. We don’t claim to have all the answers, and we’re sure to make some huge mistakes, but along the way, we’re having fun watching Internet TV -- which is really the main point to all of this!

What kind of shows does Orwell TV list?
We list links and reviews about "shows" that are updated/released on a regular basis, as well as some special event videos. We avoid listing any information about short "curiosity clips" that you might find around the web, but if "you" add such a listing, we won’t stop you. Also, we give most of our attention to independent productions. We don’t prohibit commercial video shows from being listed, if you want to add or suggest one, but our primary focus is the independent Internet video community.

Why should I add a video show?
If you are a video show creator, it’s free promotion for your hard work. And every time someone searches for a show in your category (tagged as ‘comedy’, ‘tech’, etc.) they’ll see your show listed and have access to a direct link to your site. Oh, and unlike certain "other places", you don’t have to give us your credit card information just to have your show listed. Finally, for viewers, Orwell TV isn't selling you anything, so our reviews are not influenced by commerce, and they can be as biased and passionate as necessary. We aren't trying to sell you videos, we're just telling you what's out there.

How do I add a show?
Anyone can add a show quickly and for free. There two simple ways to add a show.
1) Simply click the button or link entitled "Add A Video Show" or "Add A Review", and you’ll be taken to a sign-up page that will quickly allow you to post new video show listings and reviews for free.
2) If you don’t want to sign up, you can simply email us your suggestion and we’ll take a look at the show for possible listing and review.

Are there rules for how to add a show, or write a review?
Just a few...

-No profanity, or explicit photos.

-We ask that you take a look at our existing reviews and try to format your reviews similarly. If you don’t, we will format or modify the review ourselves.

-When adding a show, in the video show link field, you can simply add this code, with the proper video show’s website address:

<a href="http://www.YourVideoShowHere.com" target="_blank">Watch It Now!</a>

-Reviews are limited to 300 words

-Please tag your reviews appropriately. Take a look at our existing reviews for guidance.

-We prefer to let visitors edit themselves and be passionately opinionated. But when necessary, we reserve the right to remove, or modify a review at our sole discretion.

*NOTE: The views, opinions and claims made by visitors within video show reviews are not necessarily the views of Orwell TV, or its affiliates.

How does Orwell TV decide which shows they review?
1) If we can’t get to your video show for free, and easily accessible via the Internet or mobile phone, we won’t review it. And even if your video is available for free, If we have to jump through numerous hoops to see your video show, we’ll just move on.

2) We generally look to list shows that we find interesting (regardless of the low or high rating we give a show), and we look for shows that have at least 3 episodes done.

3) The rating system is open to all, and if enough people rate a show highly, a low rating by Orwell TV can be raised by the voting readers. Similarly, a high rating by Orwell TV can be lowered. The ratings go from 1 Wink (a stinker) to 5 Winks (video show heaven). When reading Orwell TV video show ratings, readers should keep in mind that we take "everything" in account when giving a rating. A show that cost $5 to make but has great content might get 5 Winks, while a slick, beautifully produced show that is ultimately boring might get as low as 2 Winks. We look at everything from editing, camera work, content, script, actors/hosts, and the overall experience before giving a rating.

Why shouldn’t I just follow the trend of trying to get my show listed on iTunes, or similar services?
You must give Apple Computer/iTunes your personal credit card information to even be "considered" for listing. We don't think that is fair, or helpful to the growth of Internet television. And there are a couple of other reasons that apply to "all" proprietary/semi-closed Internet TV distribution tools. The Internet TV community is shaping up into two camps. Those who crave the validation of proprietary networks like iTunes, and those who prefer to maintain control of their distribution by opening it up to various formats available on their own website. The most open distribution channel an Internet show producer has is their own website. Simple links to websites are still the most popular way Internet users get their content. That’s why Orwell TV offers simple links and little else. As Internet distribution/media format trends change, and the next iteration of Bittorrent, Theora, etc. debuts, show producers need the ability to deliver their shows in the way that best suits them, and their viewers. This allows everyone to control their own creations, from delivery to content. This is good for viewers, advertisers, and show producers. So while some juggle ten different snazzy functions designed to make finding and viewing Internet TV shows easier (where’s that VCR manual), we keep it simple, and give you a searchable site, with links, and a dash of opinion (yours included). So simple, it hurts...so good.

All this sounds like so much happy talk I’ve heard before, what are you guys really thinking?
Everything here is sincere and accurate, but intentionally brief. If you want to read some of our more long-winded, elaborate thoughts on Internet television, feel free to visit the Orwell TV blog.