When streaming to multiple platforms (mixer, twitch, etc) live, resolution may be limited. Because all of these distribution methods are “multicast” style, lowering resolution to a lowest common denominator helps everything run smoothly.
The argument when Leo started comes back to the point “It can’t be just content” or did we just get past that? We can go back to audio only??
Yes and no one has suggested that TWiT run one stream and use Akamai or Cloudflare. TWiT could move to a higher capacity system and give more bandwidth and the ability to scale resolution.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean.
I would bet Chachefly provides metrics on what is downloaded and I would bet those metrics say most people don’t really care if the video is HD or not.
I am audio only all the time and I don’t feel like I’m missing out on anything. If anything this forum has filled in anything I might have been missing out on.
1 Like
How would using Akamai/Cloudflare improve streaming capabilities?
But wouldn’t they need 4K cameras too?
I mostly consume audio only and listen while I work and drive, but when I do watch it is usually in a Window, and I downsize to something like 480.
I don’t really need to see heads at 4K…
1 Like
Cachefly only gives basic metrics and the last time Leo looked, there was clearly an equal share of downloads. But this was before the higher resolutions. That is a good starting point.
If you are audio only, great. No need for cameras or a live show. It goes back to recorded. TWiT saves money. TV suddenly gets better tech shows.
Yes and more traffic and demand drives that. All of you are saying lower demand and get rid of video. Everyone else has been saying for years video production drove up quality.
The new iPhone records in 4K, so I suppose he could just talk into that. Joking aside, I’m not knowledgeable enough about their setup to know how disruptive it would be (cost aside) to upgrade like that.
Good point. What would it cost to upgrade to 4k, even two cameras?
I think this all comes down to format, legacy, and the size of TWiT.
All the TWiT shows are either a roundtable discussion or a back and forth between hosts on news topics. It’s almost all live, fixed cam, except when they cut to the overhead product cam on rare occasions, or sometimes to audience, and otherwise it’s sharing the screen and switching to guests (remote Skype streaming means much lower quality). This kind of format doesn’t really take full advantage of high resolution video like a dedicated product review show would.
Now, if TWiT had shows that did lend themselves better to higher quality video - and one could argue HOT and HOP might fit into this category - an approach that could let them more affordably go to 4K is to treat such projects as independent, streaming-platform native projects. Run them with the same minimal setup like tech tubers do.
It’s unlikely for this to happen, though, because TWiT is following the same model from back in the G4/Tech TV days, and it’s worked out for them. TWiT is fairly successful, and one of the original podcast networks (maybe the only one) that’s still around.
It’s not a big company by any means, but big enough to be wary of larger risks than they’ve taken on new shows (there’s a graveyard of old shows now, hence the caution with waiting for subscribers before giving STT the go-ahead for video). If it isn’t broke, why fix it?
4 Likes
So, now you set a direction. Bigger shows, put in more advertising (even TV formatted commercials), more guests who are celebrities or high status, get it on some kind of broadcast network.
Even in your last paragraph you were dismissing them as G4 TV. You do realize G4 transitioned each time when television advanced itself, right? They went from a local satellite feed to cable and satellite in the US and Canada, as well as other countries you would not have imagined. Even in Canada we got the broadcast in full HD when our cable was upgraded.
I’m not arguing against you, just explaining why it won’t happen.
2 Likes
Right but I’m turning it into a discussion. We only have one voice. One.
But then you have to consider Leo himself. Does he want to continue to grow TWiT? Does he want to put more work into TV advertisement, upgrading equipment, changing formats…?
Seems like he has a pretty sweet thing going right now. And if anyone knows the unintended consequences and pitfalls of a TV station it would be him. It might not just be lack of demand or upgrade costs both physical and digital but all the other things that come with a large transition.
They likely have a well oiled machine in Petaluma. Why fix it when it’s not broken?
2 Likes
This is the one thing that might lead them to adapting or changing their model. TWiT can probably largely maintain its sizeable audience, but unless I’m mistaken (don’t have hard data) very few people who regularly watch the network are under 25.
Just from the large percentage of people in the introductions section who say they discovered Leo and the network because of stuff from two decades ago, I would hazard that very few kids (save the ones who call in on TTG) are aware of TWiT unless their parents are fans. The recent podcast renaissance may have helped, but it has also flooded the market with a ton of podcasts.
TWiT might still grow some from word of mouth, but I’ve never heard even a hint of TWiT on any other tech platform in recent memory, and that doesn’t bode well, considering how often these channels and sites will often credit and plug each other. TWiT seems to exist in its own space, apart from the Twitter journalist set, who thankfully still appear as guests.
To be clear, I’m not knocking TWiT or Leo for this: they are keeping high standards for their shows, and the conversations are intellectual and enlightening. Leo helps a ton of people, and the audio focus is great for the visually impaired. But I do think it’s a bit sad when the average age is increasing (which might be okay for advertisers; an older audience may have more disposable income, provided we’re not talking about a large percentage being fixed-income), as much as I appreciate the wisdom and experience of that audience in a place like this.
(I wanted to make the analogy that TWiT is like Windows, a legacy service that is best left unchanged, but I don’t want to hurt Leo’s feelings given how he feels about Windows 
)
2 Likes
This is probably true. Maybe once there is a regime change there will be a pivot towards a younger audience 
I’m 30 and I know TWiT because of Tech TV and Kevin Rose, Leo and Patrick. Maybe on the younger side of the demographic.
1 Like
Linus is the new Leo, Floatplane is the new TWiT, and The WAN Show is the new This Week in Tech. I hate to say it, but on the other hand that’s just the way the world works. But TWiT will be around for a good while.
2 Likes
Not everything has to cater to a youth audience, there’s a hundred tech vloggers who aim for ‘da kidz’ already and TWIT caters for a loyal market that’s underserved elsewhere.
Furthermore, even young people get older, and start to shift towards less gimmicky presentation styles. It doesn’t matter if only middle aged people watch TWIT, because everyone gets middle aged one day.
People watch these shows as much for the personalities and company they offer as the tech news. I could listen to Paul and Mary Jo talk about rabbit hutches for two hours and be entertained.
There’s no need for 4K broadcasts because these shows are essentially video feeds of a podcast being made. Putting more emphasis on the visuals would destroy their charm.
3 Likes