Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 27th Mar 2006 19:30 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 108578
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-16
Video is a silly argument. You still have to get the pixels pushed over the network to you somehow...
The only thing that having Google download the video would do is change which is the weakest link inthe network. So, instead of getting that 500MB video from a remote server, you are getting it from Google. This means that your connection to Google is now the weakest network link (the only point actually).
This may speed up your video download a bit, but it wouldn't be instantaneous, and you'd completely lose the decentralized aspects of the internet. Thus creating a single point of convergence (obviously it would be geographically distributed, but still consolidated). When everyone is running their GoogleOS, and if it works as you'd suggest, can you imagine the network congestion on Google's side? Everyone would be attempting to receive more data from Google and less from everywhere else, which is not a good thing.
The problem is, the screen and speakers are still on your desk, not Google's.