The growth of Youtube and its subsequent $1.65 billion buyout left behind a bevy of competing video sites. Since then competitors have been seeking to differentiate themselves by focusing on longer videos, higher (bitrate) quality videos, professional content, and paying their users. However, one of the more unique approaches to differentiation has been streaming live video over the internet. If social live video gets big traction down the road, it’s most likely going to be led by one of these startups:
The oldest of the bunch, launching back in February of 2006, Stickam lets you host your own live show stream and chat on their site or embedded in your own. When your show isn’t live, you can show a pictures, audio, or recorded shows on a MySpace-like profile page. The front page of the site features the most recent show and their number of live viewers, which currently is floating around 3,000.
Launched back in May, BlogTv also lets you start your own live show and chat. Every show you record is broadcasted live and then archived. You can subscribe to each show on your account, embed, rate, and recommend them. Live shows are shown on the front page, but you can also review the archived footage in their library. They just launched a new live embeddable player that lets you and a co-host stream a show with live chat directly from your blog.
Yet to get out of private beta, Mogulus is focused on live video production tools. Using their tools, you can see how many viewers are waiting for your broadcast and storyboard the show you’re about to broadcast on your own Mogulus URL. With storyboarding, you can drop recorded videos into your feed at cue and even overlay graphics such as logos or titles. You can even collaborate with another producer and cooperatively shape the storyboard.
The oddest of the bunch, Justin.tvlaunched with a splash and then again when police raided their apartment. The novelty of the site centered around one of the co-founders, Justin Kan, streaming his life 24/7 from a head cam. Justin.tv has yet to launch an open network, and has instead opted to expand slowly by adding a select number of dedicated “lifecasters”. Each caster gets a live feed, video archive, and chat channel. Instead of just featuring what’s live on the front page, they’ve also developed a “tips” service that lets users dig up key moments.
Launched back in March, Ustream is another lifecasting network letting anyone plug in and start streaming, similar to Stickam. It’s caught on in the tech crowd with people like Robert Scoble and Chris Pirillo streaming their own shows from offices or on the road at conventions. Each caster gets a profile page where they can post their videos, photos, and thoughts. The player comes with live chat, the ability to archive footage, and embed it on your site. They feature the archived versions on their front page along with the live feeds.Live flash video is a different animal than the recorded videos you see on all over Youtube. These sites require more accurate distribution networks because, like FedEx, their packages always have to arrive on time. Back in March, Youtube delivered over 1.1 billion streams to 53.5 million unique users. That’s an unheard of number for live video on the web. You can see a comparison of the above site’s traffic on Alexa here, but be warned that streaming sites don’t need to be refreshed to consume more content and therefore don’t generate as many pageviews as non streaming sites.
Live video also complicates the trend toward time shifted video. The serendipity of live video makes it engaging to watch, but at the same time hard to bubble interesting content to the top. Sites have reacted to the problem by archiving and rating the videos, or more interestingly, voting up individual clips.
One final problem is the accessibility of live video production for consumers. Anyone with any kind of camera can upload to one of the social video site, but with live video, producers have to be more committed if they’re going to produce quality content. To avoid the hum drum of being chained to a webcam, users have to either be very talented, or construct their own mobile cameras. Advancement in mobile phones may change that, but right now it’s a significant limitation.
Live video has one great strength, however, the ability to directly engage the audience, be they friends or admirers. This is why I think if we see tremendous success in live video casting, it will come from sites that focus on building a community around a few top new media stars that can captivate their audience and drive the bulk of the traffic to the site.
Couldn’t YouTube be “the youtube of live video?”
At least, one of these services could be bought out and turned into “Youtube Live.”
Stickam gets my vote!! We will be broadcasting Microphone Check, a webcast series featuring underground hip hop interviews this saturday using stickam.
thx
jason jenkins
the abstract surrealist
http://www.abstract10.com
I’m supporting Justin.tv, but they have a lot of work to do yet, the platform is not very Youtube-ish as of now.
what about kyte tv???
I see monetization a huge problem..Even YouTube did not make huge money last year..
These companies have to create brands and merchandise around the technology or cash will always be a problem.
nice Post .
hier is a fun collection of firefox ad videos.maybe you would like to see it .
http://firefox2007.org
You forgot to mention Operator 11. O11 includes the ability to stream multiple participants, up to 9, and includes a ‘bucket’ for pre-recorded flash video, which can be cued like another participant.
Additionally, blogtv.com also includes the ability to switch between the host and a ‘co-host’, another participant in the chat room with a webcam and/or microphone.
I’ve been using all the services, sometimes concurrently, usually interchangeably, depending on the need.
I’ve been broadcasting a live music performance show from my coffee shop since April on ustream.tv, and found that being featured on the home page drives much more virtual attendance.
The downside to many of the services is the low quality of the stream. The flash settings are of limited use, and the low framerate imposed by the services makes audio sync issues stand out.
Actually the news may not be formulated adequatly. You Tube has enough cash to buy out any new comer or established start up on the field. As many have said cash is always a problem. A problem which is not Youtube’s one.
Yeah its an open market;
– but the problem with live video is ….
– its not at its best / unless its viewed live.
Blogtv is available in Israel for over 2 years now, it is owned by the largest community websites and it is a major hit here.
I think that it is available also in Canada for the last year.
Ustream.tv is by far the current leader in this bunch. They have the most broad acceptance and type of content.
Stickam is way too focused on webcam girls. Justin is a waste. Blogtv has seen no traction.
I predict Youtube will by Ustream.tv by the end of the year.
Once again Nick and Tech Crunch throw Justin TV in our faces because of their personal relationships with them.
When are you going to figure out no one cares about Justin’s boring life?
But the Chinese Government is gonna block youtube for their people.
I think live streaming is too boring. What ends up happening is that you revert back to a “best of” and it becomes pre-recorded video. Already you see a big part of ustream.tv’s site dedicated to recorded video. All this stuff are intermediate steps in the process of disintermediating the established media distribution. It’s following the textbook pattern from the Innovator’s Dilemma. Attack from below with a low-margin offering, then slowly gain share until it’s too late while the established players move up-market. Eventually the attackers gain so much share that the incumbents are the minority players. Have you checked your cable bill lately? It’s expensive!! Lots of money there to be had.
Ustream.tv will “win” – I have no doubt. But I think that all of these websites are winners, and will ultimately be purchased by Google, Yahoo, MSN, ect.
@Jesse Stevens,
Hey Jesse, are you working at UStream.TV ? Don’t like Justin.tv… boring.
I predict that youtube will not going to buy their competitor. Instead they are going to include those functionality on their current application.
To avoid the hum drum of being chained to a webcam……
WWIGO can be used :)
Blogtv.ca is very popular in Canada. They launched it in April and have around 30 concurrent broadcasters all day long.
Justin TV can easily monetize his traffic through having his friends wear sponsors T Shirts…by going to certain restaurants in San Fran, posters in his room… the possibilities are endless.
Jeremiah Owyang at Podtech is keeping a running list of vendors in this space at http://urltea.com/luu Also, CDN Akamai said last month that they will soon launch a live streaming video service – it’ll be interesting to see how they do it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they kick every ones’ butts on quality. It probably won’t be free though so perhaps they are off the list of “YouTube of live.” Their service could be licensed by someone else who does offer it for free though.
People interested in this field, and I think it is going to be WAY hot, should check out what Chris Pirillo is doing with UStream (http://chris.pirillo.com/live/ ). He’s doing 5 topic-based live segments a day with banner ads and live chat, and recording them for cross posting around the web with the ads and chat embedded in the archived video. It’s bad assed stuff, imho.
Very timely post btw, thanks for doing it.
“The serendipity of live video makes it engaging to watch…”
Sorry, but 99% of the live video I’ve seen on these services is not engaging – it’s downright lacking.
“To avoid the hum drum of being chained to a webcam, users have to either be very talented, or construct their own mobile cameras.”
Creators of video content always have to be talented. Being mobile doesn’t necessarily mean that you will create something interesting. Justin.tv is completely mobile but his activities do not have any mainstream appeal whatsoever. When you compare his audience at any given time to a reality TV show on a second-rate cable network, Justin.tv is still trailing by an exponential amount.
Chris Neumann: I agree with you that live streaming is typically boring, however I disagree that established distribution platforms are going to be completely disintermediated to the point that services like the ones here will collectively own more marketshare than established players like cable networks. I think a lot of people fail to realize that the media industry has two components: content production and content distribution.
The purpose of content is to entertain and inform. The low-cost content being produced by “prosumers” often fails to do these things and the gap between professional content and user-generated content is likely to always exist. The demand from mainstream viewers for professional content is not decreasing; the viewers are simply wanting to consume that content via multiple platforms including the Internet. This is the very reason why services like YouTube are filled with copyrighted content. Without compelling content in the first place, technology startups in the distribution space will always be beholden to the entities that actually produce content worth distributing. If you’re shocked at your cable bill and feel that there’s lots of money there to be had, try getting startups in Silicon Valley to produce content actually worth paying anything for.
I write about this subject in much more depth on my new blog:
http://www.dram...-own-hollywood/
Sorry to nitpick
but the sloppy spelling on TechCrunch
is becoming very distracting.
Would peer review help screen out the mistakes?
Nick,
nice post in the current cloudy context regarding live video. ofcourse time will decide the winner in this space.
“To avoid the hum drum of being chained to a webcam, users have to either be very talented, or construct their own mobile cameras. Advancement in mobile phones may change that, but right now it’s a significant limitation.”
This in itself is a decent problem which has to be addressed. Solution called WWIGO “Webcam whereve i GO” from Motvik (www.motvik.com) is addressing this gap.
Its obvious that not many people here have a marketing background! CONTENT IS NOT ABOUT QUALITY IS ABOUT QUANTITY, DISTRIBUTION and ADVERTISING. The reason we like the things we like is because someone advertised it and shoved it down our throats. http://www.abstract10.com , we have a library of compelling urban content that we share for FREE. As time goes on people will pay less and less for ALL content, because it will be free somewhere on the web. THE WINNERS OF THE ONLINE CONTENT WARS WILL BE THE COMPANY THAT DEVELOPS A MODEL WHERE THEY PRODUCE THEIR OWN CONTENT, DEVELOP COMPLIMENTARY BRANDS, THEN USE THE CONTENT TO ADVERTISE THEIR OWN BRANDS, NOT PEPSI. THEN DISTRIBUTE THAT CONTENT THROUGHOUT THE 1,000,000 SOCIAL NETWORKS AND VIDEO SITES. THUS YOU HAVE http://WWW.ABSTRACT10.COM
tHX
jason jenkins
the abstract surrealist
Live videos will be a hit for 3 reasons:
1. Old Videos=Old News=Boring
2. Unexpected things happen Live (JJ malfunction)
3. We might pay for Live
Just my 2 cents
Content or not, I lOVE seeing the Supernova Conference on Ustream.tv! Thanks Ustream!
My former company, Paltalk (and Hearme) , has been doing live video streaming for 6 years and I guarantee they are doing more streams than all of the above companies mention combined. They have tons of content producers ranging from radio jockeys Opie and Anthony to political disucssion groups. Lots of compelling content. Wondering why any of these startups is predicted to ‘win’ in comparison?
The only one that seems to be sticky is Stickam. Stickam has an “average stay” longer than Facebook’s.
http://snapshot...?metric=avgStay
Definitely still up in the air though.
Live video streaming is WAY over-hyped.
99.99% of non-commercial/business streaming video is so pathetic that the creators’ mothers would kill the streams after about 20 seconds.
Regarding Boring Content
I’d speculate that this type of technology would take off if put in the hands of Improv Comedy Troops. The interaction with the audience (ala Who’s Line is It Anyway) would be easy to pull off and production costs would be low.
If I worked for any of these companies I’d be hitting up the local comedy clubs and college drama departments to scout for talent.
Back in the late 90’s there was a company called Rotor Communications that was focused on live streaming for entertainment. They died when the tech bubble burst, but I would think that they or who ever ended up with their IP has a treasure chest.
I was their Director of Research, and we had some pretty impressive capabilities: live video streamed in 9 simultaneous formats, synchronized events for polling, side graphics, multiple chat forums, offensive language filtering, skin-able interface, an API for widget extensions… We did some NHL live broadcasts, a university in Australia used us for classes, and I produced a live talk and performance show for the pop music act Supreme Beings of Leisure.
It was great while it lasted… let’s see if this time around live streaming sticks.
another thing, people kill me acting like user generated content sucks, if you look on “television, say you have 100 stations 80 of them suck. So get off of hollywood’s jock strap and realize that they also have trouble keeping viewers interested, with a million dollar production budget. Stop being so picky and be glad someone IS producing something for the net. If it wasnt for user gen content, all you would have is a bunch of programmers with empty websites, SHOW SO RESPECT TO CONTENT PROVIDERS WITH NO BUDGET!
THX
JASON JENKINS
THE ABSTRACT SURREALIST
http://WWW.ABSTRACT10.COM
$1.65 billion………..
this is good for my site :-)
“with live video, producers have to be more committed if they’re going to produce quality content.”
This is a good point. There are many simple production methods that yield compelling content. I think live video producers on the web are gradually becoming more talented and resourceful. I like the way Jason Calacanis uses a conf call to interview multiple guests and an offset camera (to allow image chyrons), this is simple stuff, but evidence that unskilled (non Hollywood :) producers are graduating across the global user-base to create a niche star /producer-base. I’m a professional film producer in Hollywood and I’m not at all threatened by this, in fact I love it! Video producers are becoming as ubiquitous as ‘plummers’, they’re popping up everywhere, many will always suck but the ones who take the process of ‘production’ seriously will make careers out of live/archived live web video.
some predictions
1. there will be thousands of niche stars all over the blogosphere
2. niche live video TV guides
3. evolved live video RSS feed-casters
4. emergence of aggregated live video distribution networks based on niche/subject – will probably rise from best-of-breed-Vlogs
How do i strap a cam to my head 24/7
i looked into it.. and I’m still searching for the best solution
i have so many videos on my buggy Nokia N91, but i want to do what justin.tv – does just in my life .. well i shouldn’t but -
it would be fun and I’m fortunately surrounded by amazing people 24/7 as we build our start up living on top of a coffee shop .. any who
advice on how i can strap a cam to my noggin and just have it stream and record on my server.. thanks!
would this work http://www.spor...CFR6AWAodiB87bg with a neuros http://www.neur...com/osd/osd.asp
thank you for your time,
much appreciated)
* At least this article appeared before newteevee.com ran same article today.
* myspace is going to buy one of these, or build their own, which makes more sense than youtube getting into this business
* there are some overlooked platforms, and ones that will evolve to work with AppleTV and IPTV formats — those will have some interesting life to them.
I just saw a story on NBC http://www.nbc-...articleid=13133. It said that Stickam.com protects the interests of minors by built in safety features. I worked at Stickam and you should know that their professed concern for the safety of underage users is bogus. Right now a 14 year old user can chat outright with an adult and even worse go into a private room together where what happens can not be monitored. Stickam removed several of the features that keep underage users protected. This was done because increasing signups was a bigger priority than safety. There are repeated complaints made to the site about explicit content and behavior but they go unheeded. They fired a staff member because he was reporting predators and abuse. It is common to find minors flashing and posting explicit pictures. The so called “monitors” ban male users who remove their shirts and leave girls who are on cam in their underwear or worse. Their no tolerance policy for explicit content and concern for child safety is just so much lip service. There are even worse things going on at that company if you were to dig deeper and go behind the facade. Suffice to say I would never want any child of mine involved with it. MySpace is Sunday school compared to what goes on at Stickam and its affiliated companies.
p.s how is it that a so called start up company can afford to operate from the tallest building on the west coast of the US (US bank tower) wouldn’t you like to know where the money comes from….hint its not venture capital. Parent company Advanced Video Communications is so much bigger than they would like you to believe and they DO NOT really build video conferencing systems for companies.
Is there an easily available data source to answer this question: how many sites that produce any video “podcasts” have more than 1000 people downloading a podcast at least once per week? For that matter, how many audio podcasts are downloaded at least once more than a 1000 times a week. I think it’s a number perhaps bigger than 100 but perhaps south of 500.
I bring this up because I don’t really believe the YouTube model is an apples to apples comparison. The strength of youtube is really the viral nature of it. The strength of hundreds and than thousands of people already validating it as “content worth watching” is what makes the whole thing work.
I won’t be shocked at all if Mark Cuban comes out with a video version of Broadcast.com, to stream video, but with no focus on live broadcasts.
It could just be because I’m a dope, but I don’t see the logical path for building live audiences except for live sporting events and news. What are other examples of programming that are better live than time shifted?
I saw one more service (Veodia), whose video quality was much better. But, they are mainly concentrating on secured streaming for corporate clients.
http://www.veodia.com/
There is another site, YeboTV, that could be a disruptor although they aren’t in direct competition with the sites mentioned above. They have been streaming live concerts of some big-named acts.
One word for this whole format — BORING !!
Even live TV is loosely scritped. Fact is people live are boring most of the time, that’s why reality shows have editors. They pull out the good stuff.
The last thing we all need is to watch more Juntin.TVs staring at their laptops, having small talk at some tech function and sleeping.
There is just too much good stuff to watch that has had some actually thought and planning put in (i.e. Ask a Ninja, DiggNation)
My money is on UStream.TV (in a literal sense :-) but I expect that the live video market is going to become very crowded as the video-sharing/hosting market has ended up being. The value of live – anticipation, participation, interaction – is something we will have to build upon for our users, and prove to advertisers/sponsors/marketers. Wish us good luck!
I think the one that will come up on top is ManiaTv.com
They have great content (Tom Green, and Dave Navarro for example have their own live shows)
Content is king!
#38 – “It could just be because I’m a dope, but I don’t see the logical path for building live audiences except for live sporting events and news”
you may be right on the former point but not the latter – no seriously,
Live audiences have always held a huge and captive audience outside of sporting events and news – look at Barbara Walter’s bitchfest show as an example. What is bound to happen over time is that niche live content will compete with each other for time slots on video networks/feedcasters. Say your a fisherman and 100 fishing sites put out 30 minute shows during office ours. Video networks will promote the most popular and advertise against it.
Why live vs prerecorded you ask?
Well, it’s simple. Online video and the Blogosphere are evolving towards dramatically audience participation/ interactivity. The ‘global conversation’ is evolving into a real time format and bloggers/producers that concentrate on this real time audience participation/interactive medium will probably be the winners of tomorrow. The presidential campaign will play a huge roll in evolving this trend over the next few years, mark my words :-)
they are from england and they are called i player (i think)
blogTV i think is the only one that has the co-host function and I think it is brillant! think of all the things one can do live with this co-host thing – you interview people live, do a show with a friend from another country… amazing.
haha Simon. I put a reminder in my calendar to bug you on 6/22/10. I know a thing or two about numbers and it goes like this.
when you CAN find top podcast lists based on a meaningless subscriber number, but CAN’T find top podcast lists based on frequency of download (which is definitely data that is collected) there’s a reason. Actual usage pales in comparison to the bogus subscriber #’s and nobody in marketing would ever use a meaningful small # when a meaningless big # is available.
I believe over time 100% of the world will watch at least some video on the internet but if that # is 100% watch at least 1 minute per year, but only 6% watch 10 minutes per week, the fact that 100% of the world does it is meaningless when it comes to making money!
For now I will maintain, and wager if you like, that the top, #1 usage of live video on the internet will be…hot chicks in skimpy clothes taking their clothes off. I believe this is already a profitable business. So be happy. Live broadcast is here RIGHT NOW and people are willing to pay for it.
You are absolutely right.
I remember when people asked if YouTube would be the Flickr of video. Now we’re looking for the YouTube of live video. Next, we’ll be looking for the Twitter of streaming content.
It’s amazing how quickly our reference points evolve. What’s wrong with just looking for the biggest success?
I’m really proud to be one of the first beta tester of Mogulus. We are using it to produce a real NetTV channel with some live shows. The power of Mogulus it to le combine seamlessly live streams from anywhere and pre-produced video. For instance we use Mogulus for a show called “Night on NetTV” where we host up to 6 bloggers from different cities to discuss altogether around a specific argument. For every show we prepare a Storyboard, one of the many Mogulus features, composed by videos taken from YouTube o directly uploaded to Mogulus and we use videos during the show to break the discussion giving our viewers some extra material related to the argument of the show.
In a few words Mogulus permit us to stream a real NetTV show, with different host and video, just like a professional TV show. I’ve found Mogulus incredible powerful and easy to use. It’s a complete TV studio, online, open, free. It’s incredible. We have started yesterday to record the live show. That’s one of new Mogulus features. That permit us to retransmit continuously what we have done so that our views could sintonize their PC at the time they prefer, our shows are always on. Really, really cool.
We are also very excited about what Mogulus have announced for the near future: poweful tools to menage communication between host to permit everyone to really live cooperate to the show production, new features reagardin viewers interaction an so on. Mogulus is definitely our platform for this new kind of TV.
If someone would take a look to our show that’s the URL (just a warning everything is in italian language;):
http://tommaso....ndex.php/nettv/