"There’s no reason to believe that no less than 100% of internet users will in the future watch some sort of video online and I’m sure the weekly viewers will top 50%. Of course that’s me being the optimistic one."
Seriously, 100%? That would mean the blind, deaf and other people with accessibility issues would watch online videos as well, besides people who have poor connection speed or monthly download limit... Of course, you could claim a belief that all people with accessibility issues will have a cure with future technology/medicin and that connections are improving across the planet. However, there is still the issue of having interest in wasting time with video, while people are showing increasing interest in health across the globe instead of wanting to become "couch potatoes"
I bid thee farewell, as I can't take this post seriously...
ChristophorRick
· 5 months ago
Considering that nothing is 100% in life it was a metaphorical statement. They seemed to think that 40% was an awful lot. I don't. What I don't understand from your comment is
"That would mean the blind, deaf and other people with accessibility issues would watch online videos as well"
Technically at present, only the blind would have a problem with watching videos. The rest could easily do it, yes even the deaf, with these fancy things we call subtitles and closed captioning. In fact the blind could even experience the video via the sound so not so much watch as listen. So you're right my 100% might have been too large a number, I'll scale it back...
There’s no reason to believe that no less than 99% of internet users will in the future watch some sort of video online and I’m sure the weekly viewers will top 50%. Of course that’s me being the optimistic one.
Speaking of overstatements...I think your final line qualifies as well. Because you are dismissing an entire post based on one minor disagreement I am not sad to see you go...
Good day :)
Daniel Sevitt
· 5 months ago
Any chance of a link to the actual Magid report? They are usually pretty precise and you make them sound really wishy washy with the whole "somewhat" thing. Great post, though.
All Comments
Seriously, 100%? That would mean the blind, deaf and other people with accessibility issues would watch online videos as well, besides people who have poor connection speed or monthly download limit... Of course, you could claim a belief that all people with accessibility issues will have a cure with future technology/medicin and that connections are improving across the planet. However, there is still the issue of having interest in wasting time with video, while people are showing increasing interest in health across the globe instead of wanting to become "couch potatoes"
I bid thee farewell, as I can't take this post seriously...
"That would mean the blind, deaf and other people with accessibility issues would watch online videos as well"
Technically at present, only the blind would have a problem with watching videos. The rest could easily do it, yes even the deaf, with these fancy things we call subtitles and closed captioning. In fact the blind could even experience the video via the sound so not so much watch as listen. So you're right my 100% might have been too large a number, I'll scale it back...
There’s no reason to believe that no less than 99% of internet users will in the future watch some sort of video online and I’m sure the weekly viewers will top 50%. Of course that’s me being the optimistic one.
Speaking of overstatements...I think your final line qualifies as well. Because you are dismissing an entire post based on one minor disagreement I am not sad to see you go...
Good day :)
Good idea.. Here it is. http://www.magid.com/metacafe.pdf
Thanks for the props on the post... ;-)