Cuban Is Wrong About BitTorrent
Mark Cuban, a fascinating guy, posted a week or so ago his thoughts on BitTorrent. In summary he says, “it has a ton of challenges.”
In the last day a rebuttal from TorrentFreak has garnered a bit of attention, and in many respects I agree with them.
Here are Mark’s points, and where I disagree.
1. Conflicting Clients.
Mark suggests that there are too many bittorrent clients, that all conflict in some way. However, there are conflicting browsers, conflicting music programs, conflicting word processors, but it’s never stopped them from getting a foothold. It’s a very common problem on computers, they we’ve learned to work around.
However, I think out of all Cuban’s points he is close but for the wrong reason. It’s not conflicting clients that makes it difficult, but there is a need for yet another client to download the files, and then watch them. Why not just use a web browser for the download, and you current video player.
The greatest step forward I believe for bittorrent, is Opera’s integration into the browser. Once IE and Firefox take the same step, it’ll be easy to download with bittorrent.
2. End Users dont understand how P2P works, and once they do, they get concerned about giving up bandwidth.
Most people don’t know how the Internet works, never mind P2P. But that hasn’t stopped the Internet taking off. I also don’t know many Internet users that care to find out how it works. They just want what they want.
Anyway, this is largely irrelevant. Any online video will consume bandwidth, but it hasn’t stopped services like YouTube.
3. The P2P model of seeding is a HUGE problem for those using wireless broadband with bandwidth constraints or per bit or per minute costs.
Again, this issue exists for all online video.
4. There is a misconception that there is bandwidth savings for the end user.
This contradicts his statement in point two, where he says people don’t understand it and when they do they think they need to give up bandwidth. If people don’t understand bittorrent, how will they think it saves bandwidth.
In all my chats about bittorrent to people, including many laymen, this has never been raised. I doubt this issue even enters their mind, they just want to download that movie, or television show.
So, I think Cuban has a different reason for his “question.” I propose that what Cuban is actually saying is that the Internet is no good for distributing video, because the same argument applies regardless of the way the video is downloaded. Which, when you understand Mark’s current business focus, make sense. He’d rather have you tune in to HDNet, than watch low quality, but good enough, online video.
January 24th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
The current music business model is flawed, it’s based on old distribution models that no longer apply. It’s greatest flaw is decreased distribution costs, which are not being passed on to consumers. Additionally, the industry habit of screwing musicians out of their money has given the public no sympathy for their dying middle management, ethical poverty is bad business, it makes your customers glad to steal from you.
BitTorrent, oldschool Napster, Kazaa, BearShare, Limewire, etc all have one thing in common, cheap distribution.
If the cost to consumers becomes low enough, it’s no longer worth the bother of stealing, when a cheap Torrent or music file can be legally bought. Apple has already proven 99 cents is a good price point, it’s just a shame the Apple Music stores outside the US still charge extra for “local” distribution. There is no such thing for digital anymore, global IS local on the internet.
I’ve not bought a single CD from any record label since legal charges were filed against Napster and I never will until they change the way they do business. When Napster first came out, I sampled tracks that caused me to purchase more albums than I had ever bought in my life (mostly due to personal recommendations for music that was not even released in Australia - four years is a long time to wait for an album).
This has nothing to do with piracy, it’s about an industry bent on preventing natural evolution through technology, forcing consumers to be caught in a business model that died the day the first mp3 was encoded.
We no longer need to pay for the production and distribution for plastic, vinyl or cassette hard copies of music. Forcing consumers to purchase mass produced polluting objects for their own benefit is a waste of resources around the globe and an ethical shame to the entire music industry.
The biggest irony however is that when one label finally sees the penny drop, the useless middle men and their “local” distribution are gone, and all the profit will flow straight to the label. Which makes far better business sense.
Dell made a fortune getting rid of the middle man, I’m surprised Mark Cuban doesn’t see the opportunity.