In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/11383
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Lgabraham 05/20/2011 10:14 AM Report
Please make Charlie available on the iPad!
I am 25, and consume all my media on an iPad. Which means that I consume 90% less Charlie than I care to. I prefer this show over all others, but I am quite simply unable to access it -- via this website nor via hulu plus.
Please, help bring Charlie's curiosity and class to a new generation. Get him streaming on the iPad!
Saultxyca 01/05/2011 09:59 AM Report
Please Sir, more David Carr, Sir!
MotivationalAlarmClock 01/04/2011 09:19 PM Report
Charlie mentioned during the interview with David Carr that he would like to have a place for his audience to connect and communicate with each other. I agree! I think it would be great to include on your website!
charlizecourriers 01/04/2011 03:30 PM Report
I pad, I phone, I don't care!
REMant 01/04/2011 12:03 PM Report
Misnoma, there is little agreement on any format other than Flash and there's a lot of vested interests as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video
REMant 01/04/2011 11:49 AM Report
I enjoyed Dave Barry's year in review comment on the iPad: "Apple released the hugely anticipated iPad, giving iPhone people, at long last, something to fondle with their other hand." There was also a good cartoon recently with the caption: iMac, iPhone, iPad, iBroke.
What seems to divide the media is not so much the mediums, themselves, but the owners of them. An example of this was seen Saturday, when only one of the traditional New Year's bowl games was to be found on the broadcast networks, they having migrated to a richer source of funds, the cable networks, which not only derive revenue from ads, but also subscription, and, of course, also includes a lot of ppl who never watch football. I understand 32 of the 35 games are/were on pay TV. While subscription can be argued to be a step on the road to a pure consumer choice model such as pay-per-view, it is far from it. Alternatively, a TV tax as in the UK could be levied distributing it to the broadcasters, the same way we pay for roads. In the case of the Internet, some of the money collected by the transmission providers could be given to the content providers. But if you want to deregulate, you had better go all the way and remove the means oligopolists and mercantilists use to force ppl one way or the other. Flat-rate pricing such as cable and ISPs use is a major tool in this endeavor, but another is the fad or crowd mentality and construction of pyramid schemes such as Wall St routinely employs. As I've said several times before, little of what Wall St does is of any real value, and the movement of stock prices is the reciprocal of productivity even in the short run. And little of this would gain traction without the complicity of the Fed.
In any case, that is why Facebook appears so attractive. The only way, tho, I think Facebook will really pay off is if the stock, or whatever it can be considered at the moment, like the website, itself, attracts more and more speculators. Even if I am wrong, it will likely draw, at least initially, enough advertisers who believe it will and taken together, they, of course, will draw the money from the purchasers of the products. But there is no more novel about Facebook than there was about DOS or Windows or Google or Twitter or eBay or Groupon and the rest. All of the ideas were established and I think the real draw is the instant messaging - the same as Twitter's. I would discount the value of the consumer data, too, because it involves only fans, who were likely known before, and who are already well-acquainted with the market. The value is only in the crowd behavior, and I wonder what would happen if Facebook instituted a "Dislike" button. The involvement of more and more people is the goal, not the production of anything. It is pure "other-directedness."
Instead of commenting on content, I could see the commenting, itself, becoming the content in a sort of reality TV or game show format, involving the entire audience as actors, which is not far from what we see on YouTube now. That seems a bit too much like 1984. No doubt, however, the nobility made the same complaint about newspapers. Fortunately, like speculation, there are natural limits to that kind of success. Very different is the kind of success Wikipedia is having in actually producing content, and content that has some real value. It is becoming the best news aggregator, too.
misnoma 01/04/2011 11:08 AM Report
David and Charlie mention viewing charlierose.com on an IPad?
Do the videos play on your iPad?
They don't on mine.
I assumed it's because the developers are using a flowplayer/flash-based solution rather than HTML5
On this topic, please could charlierose.com developers please switch to HTML5 video so we can watch the full hour videos on our iPads/iPhones?
YouTube is a partial solution, but does not seem to have the full hour length.
Am i missing something?