Jesse Stay wrote a piece for Louis Grey where he asks if Sundance can do for Qik what SXSW did for Twitter. I say no. I'm not saying Qik isn't an important or impressive technology, I'm simply saying Qik doesn't have the reach Twitter did, and therefore won't have as big an impact.
Here are my reasons. Qik is only supported by a small amount of handsets, unlike Twitter, which supports SMS and the mobile web. If I can't get to the content easily, or produce content easily, I'm not going to use it, and I don't think others will either. Most people will have to be logged into a computer in order to see any of the videos created, and that diminishes the purpose of a mobile social tool.
The next issue is technology and infrastructure. Many of today's handsets don't have internet access, and if they do it's not fast enough to handle streaming video. Again this leaves out a vast majority of mobile device owners who can't participate with their mobile device. I realize you can post a link to the Qik video, but I must be at my desktop to view it.
Next I think there is quality problem. I would assume because the amount of data being transfered the compression gives mobile video streaming really poor quality, sometimes unwatchable. For example, when Apple released the iPhone 3G, Jesse was at the Salt Lake City Apple store recording with Qik, but the quality was so bad it was almost impossible to follow. Nothing Jesse did, it was the technology.
I follow Robert Scoble, who is always Qik'ing video where ever he goes. When I'm logged in to my PC, I like to see what he's up to. Qik is great for recording video and sharing on the net, but so is YouTube, and it has a farther reaching affect. If you're lucky enough to have a handset that gives you this power, have fun. For those that don't, we'll have to wait for something truly revolutionary.
Maybe I'm wrong about the lack of wide spread use. But I don't think there are enough techie types at Sundance to give Qik nearly the thrust SXSW gave Tiwtter.
read more...
Here are my reasons. Qik is only supported by a small amount of handsets, unlike Twitter, which supports SMS and the mobile web. If I can't get to the content easily, or produce content easily, I'm not going to use it, and I don't think others will either. Most people will have to be logged into a computer in order to see any of the videos created, and that diminishes the purpose of a mobile social tool.
The next issue is technology and infrastructure. Many of today's handsets don't have internet access, and if they do it's not fast enough to handle streaming video. Again this leaves out a vast majority of mobile device owners who can't participate with their mobile device. I realize you can post a link to the Qik video, but I must be at my desktop to view it.
Next I think there is quality problem. I would assume because the amount of data being transfered the compression gives mobile video streaming really poor quality, sometimes unwatchable. For example, when Apple released the iPhone 3G, Jesse was at the Salt Lake City Apple store recording with Qik, but the quality was so bad it was almost impossible to follow. Nothing Jesse did, it was the technology.
I follow Robert Scoble, who is always Qik'ing video where ever he goes. When I'm logged in to my PC, I like to see what he's up to. Qik is great for recording video and sharing on the net, but so is YouTube, and it has a farther reaching affect. If you're lucky enough to have a handset that gives you this power, have fun. For those that don't, we'll have to wait for something truly revolutionary.
Maybe I'm wrong about the lack of wide spread use. But I don't think there are enough techie types at Sundance to give Qik nearly the thrust SXSW gave Tiwtter.
