Jump to content

Talk:Video on demand

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initial comments

[edit]

I don't understand Video on demand. Are there advertisements?

  • I merged Near Video on Demand into VOD and redirected the NVOD page here.

Any factors can acclerate and inhibit the growth of VOD?

-- the intro mentions the Digital Cinema Initiative and jpeg 2000. Those are focused on digital cinema while VOD is typically at home. So it really does not belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.12.41 (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VoD and special features?

[edit]

After reading the article, I am still not sure whether or not VoD services allow you to watch all the special features that come with a movie when you rent/buy a DVD. Can anybody clarify this?

Reply:VOD is going to show you the feature of the DVD. It's not like putting a DVD in a player and streaming it to your TV. However, for more highly anticipated releases of movies, the content provider will sometimes include special features that you can watch as separate videos (they are generally free, even if you don't watch the regular movie). Sometimes they embed special features at the head or tail of the movie as well. Okipatrick 01:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About VOD

[edit]

Now, there are some New Releases that are coming with DVD capabilities, like the Warner Bros. "Movies that Pop" [1]. VOD is like a Pay-per-View that you can watch whenever you'd like. Video On Demand allows you to order movies right from home using your digital remote. With access to a library of hollywood titles at your fingertips, Video On Demand lets you watch movies on your time. With VCR functionality, you’re in control of your Video On Demand movie. Fast forward, rewind, or pause at any time. It’s customized to fit your needs, so you can have the most convenient and enjoyable movie experience

I think that putting such a statement in the article is promoting one corporation's product, and it would also confuse the article. VOD is independent of Pay-per-View, however Pay-per-View is often offered on VOD systems. For instance, my cable company's VOD lets me watch thousands of different TV programmes as often as I like without incurring any PPV charges. However, if I want to watch a recent blockbuster in high-definition on VOD then I will be charged something like £5.99 for each 24 hour "rental". Strictly speaking, it isn't PPV as you can watch it as many times as you like in that time period, whereas "Pay per View" means just that - you pay each time you watch it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.43.189 (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OIPV acronym

[edit]

This seems to have been invented specially for Wikipedia, 'OIPV video' search on Google doesn't find it anywhere else. Suggest we change this to 'VOD over IP'. Richard Donkin 08:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ResumeViewingOption 1.jpg

[edit]

Image:ResumeViewingOption 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move VOD service list to its own page?

[edit]

This list could grow to a very large size due to the large number of available VOD services. It should probably be moved to its own article to avoid messing up this one?

Destynova (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we even need a separate list article. Can't we have a category for all the VoD providers instead, if we don't already? Anyway, I agree that this list has an almost infinite potential for length and it's been far too long for far too long. I took a bold step and removed all of it. I admit I have barely read WP:CLN, so revert me if I went too far, but I think the article is more digestible now. Haakon (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VOD vs. VoD

[edit]

Which do we like better? Either is good out in the world but I think we should strive for consistency on WP. --Kvng (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Catch up TV into Video on demand, since the subjects are effectively synonymous. Catch up TV is only a stub dealing with this subject. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree – Yes, I agree, and more accurate than the merge to internet television I suggested. Lachlanusername (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support a merge but believe Internet television is the more appropriate destination. VoD is generally watched on a television set and can be delivered via Internet or CATV network. Internet TV and Catch up are watched on a computer via the Internet. --Kvng (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the industry, catchup refers to VoD within a short period of time following transmission, usually up to 7 days. Additionally 'series catchup' is a means for viewers to see any episode of a current series via VoD. The platform of delivery is not specified in VoD or Catchup: it can mean to the TV set, PC, tablet, mobile etc. For example, the BBC iPlayer is available on Virgin Media cable television, as well as over the Internet. Internet TV, meanwhile, is a very loose term that encompasses both VoD and simulcast, ie live/linear transmission, and both commercial/professional video as well as user-generated content. FunkyCanute (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirect of Television on demand to this article

[edit]

There was an article titled "Television on demand". I decided to delete the content of that article and to make the term a redirect to this article. Despite the good intentions of the editors of the Television on demand article, it was simply not written in an encyclopedic style. Also, it included arguments in favor of certain practices, while Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral. Finally, there is significant overlap of the subjects of television on demand and video on demand, with television on demand being a type of video on demand, in my opinion. -- Kjkolb (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United States and Canada

[edit]

There is room for improvement in this section of the article. There are no citations and there are no links to the services mentioned. I also suggest that the U.S. and Canada be separated since they are after all separate countries with separate VoD services. SCTT (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Jargon Batman

[edit]

Does anyone have any decent sources on the various contemporary and defunct jargon in use here? We can then break down the areas by defunct, minority share and the most popular contemporary terminology. Deku-shrub (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appalling jargon

[edit]

This section is removed, it's long, confused, detailed, filled with jargon or personal reflections and wholly unsourced, and probably out of date.

Additional categories of video on demand

  • Interactive video on demand is the standard version of video on demand where people have the following features at their disposal:
    1. Play/Resume - Start a program/movie from the beginning or resume after temporarily stopping the show.
    2. Stop - Temporarily or permanently stop the presentation of the show.
    3. Pause - Freeze the picture.
    4. Jump forward - Jump to a particular time in the presentation (movie) in a forward direction.
    5. Jump backward - Jump to a particular time in the presentation (movie) in a backward direction.
    6. Fast Forward (FF) - Browse through the movie in the forward direction with picture and sound on.
    7. Slow Down - Going forward at a lower rate than normal but with picture and sound.
    8. Reverse - Playing the movie in the reversed direction with picture and sound.
    9. Fast Reverse - Browse the presentation in the backward direction with picture and sound at a faster speed than standard reverse.
    10. Slow Reverse: Go backward at a slower speed, with picture and sound.
    11. Other interactive features include the ability to avoid or select advertisements, to investigate additional details about news events and to browse, select, and purchase goods.
  • Exclusive video on demand is when a particular TV-based VOD content provider offers a function, service and/or program that no other content provider has, it might be called exclusive video on demand.
  • Impulse video on demand is now typically referred to as "video on demand" but in the past, this term often referred to the ability to order TV-based video on demand programming, without having to first phone in your order to the network operator.
  • Quasi video on demand is the same as near video on demand except that the programming only will be presented if a minimum number of subscribers sign up for it.
  • Transactional video on demand is the opposite of subscription video on demand. With transactional VOD the customer pays for each individual video on demand program, like pay-per view television.
  • Free video on demand is video on demand programming that a network operator makes available as part of a content package. FVOD can make it possible for subscribers to have unlimited access to movies/programming offered during a specific time period. The opposite would be subscriber video on demand where a subscriber pays a standard fee for programming that may have no, or limited advertisements. OnDemand is a UK-based company owned by the On Demand Group which offers free VOD through Inview Technology; their product Inview Inside is royalty free.

-- Aronzak (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Video on demand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On section "Role of piracy and peer to peer" NPOV

[edit]

It should be noted that "piracy", though generally understood to be related to copyright infringement, is a smear-word. The section goes further to add emphasis on aclaimed legal services, then compares them to the BitTorrent protocol in light of the protocol being proposed as "illegal". Quoting from the given citation, [t]orrenting is a popular alternative to legal streaming, buying and renting. I find this to be non-neutral and non-sense, because BitTorrent is a communications protocol like any other (e.g. HTTP) in context. For a neutral point of view, this section should talk about copyright infringement instead of "piracy" or copyright infringement that happens on peer-to-peer networks, and how peer-to-peer networks are really utilized to deliver video on demand. I'll bring it up for consideration if copyright infringement is an encyclopedic topic specifically in this article. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section is also injecting original research, as VOD has existed long before P2P and is a completely different subject. That some VOD providers are or may be switching to P2P to enhance or boost their service has nothing to do with issues of piracy and copyright infringement. The only connection between VOD and "piracy" that might be applicable to this article are people who illegally redistribute legal VOD content. But the section as it currently stands is terrible and should be removed and completely rewritten. Laval (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Streaming TV

[edit]

There's no reason for there to be two distinct articles for the same topic. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, just prior to making that comment, I proposed a merge between streaming TV and web television. Really, all three of these articles are begging to be made one:

I just did lots of overhaul on the streaming television article, but it's still in really rough shape. It's just not a good article. It has a meandering focus, with lots of hedging so it spends too many words saying not enough. It reads like a bad school research paper from a middling writer whose main aim was to hit a certain page count.

The reality is that the current article here—for video on demand—is probably the best starting point. So anything worthwhile from the other two should probably be incorporated here, and those articles then made to redirect here. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: the previous comments notwithstanding, I think the end result should live under the article name "streaming TV". (It's just that video on demand has the best content to start with—I don't think that "video on demand" is the best title for this.) -- C. A. Russell (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
VoD is not web television though. In Israel (probably in other countries also), the regular cable/satellite subscription can include a VoD package. Web television is a whole different creature altogether, even if it shares the "VoD" aspect of it. Basically, both traditional and internet-based services can provide a VoD feature, so it should be its own article. web television and streaming television on the other hand should indeed be merged. --Gonnym (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with with most of your ideas regarding the merger. However with one caveat. I also agree with Gonnym that video on demand should remain it's own sub-topic. Video on Demand, to most people, is what people order through cable television. The term "On Demand" is widely used by Comcast and other major cable providers. Streaming Television and Web Television, agreed, a much needed merger. Perhaps a redirect at the top of the VoD page along the lines of: "Click here if you're looking for streaming television" type of links. Metcalf81 (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something that strikes me about this debate is that both of the terms "Video-on-demand" and "web television" were coined at a time before online video was common; when online video finally did land, it got called "streaming video" or "streaming television." I think these two articles should be merged with the article on Streaming Television, but there should be an expanded section on the development of the concept which would discuss previous attempts at VOD and web television.theBOBbobato (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the first two makes sense, as they are about similar technologies with sufficient overlap. Not sure about the third article, as it seems to be about a particular form of content rather than a system of delivery per se. --Editor B (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose VOD is a function that is available on most cable and satellite providers as part of their system. It's similar to pay-per-view. You have to pay for it separately via remote control. Whereas web TV or streaming refers to specifically an internet based platform. DA1 (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For same reason as DA1. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we also consider a merge with Streaming media? Seems like these are all related and could be grouped together. 162.208.171.22 (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of these pictures are public domain

[edit]

All of the pictures on here are listed as being the Wikipedia users' "Own Work," but I do not believe any of them are public domain under this reasoning, unless of course the users in question are the actual owners of the brands depicted. The first depicts copyrighted content from an airliner's VOD service, and therefore does not come under the public domain as is. The second is a picture of a copyrighted product with the background cropped out so that the product is the sole focus of the image. The final is a screenshot of a copyrighted service. I think all of these images should be redefined as fair use and rescaled accordingly, or deleted. Eddiehimself (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Media Innovations

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adamjiwa (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mmonday17.

— Assignment last updated by Mmonday17 (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:PR}} Allthewall4 (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"A VOD service was proposed as early as 1986 in Japan"

[edit]

the source doesn't exactly say that, it was the opinion of the journal that reported on the subject. Althought video on demand was already being mentioned in american papers from the 70s, they even talk about the difficulties about achieving it. Just check google scholar. Mirad1000 (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Video_on_demand&oldid=1250961257"