« Previous post
Next post »

June 22, 2007

Who Will Be The YouTube Of Live Video?

Nick Gonzalez

114 comments »

youtubelivelogo.pngThe 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:

    stickammini.png 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.blogtvmini.pngLaunched 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.mogulusmini1.pngYet 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.justintvmini.pngThe 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.ustreamtvmini.pngLaunched 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.

  • Sphere It

This entry was posted on Friday, June 22nd, 2007 at 5:00 am and is filed under Company & Product Profiles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

  1. Things That ... Make You Go Hmm

    June 22nd, 2007 at 8:43 am

  2. Sex in Webvertising

    June 22nd, 2007 at 12:48 pm

  3. abaadad1ec51772202d174d63511a928

    July 17th, 2007 at 8:45 pm

  4. BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Buying their voices

    August 4th, 2007 at 11:27 am

  5. The Facts of Lifecasting « Chillin’ in Suite 200

    September 9th, 2007 at 11:48 pm

  6. BlogTV Integrates Streaming Video into Facebook

    September 11th, 2007 at 8:00 am

  7. La WebTV delle vite in diretta. Intervista al CEO di Justin.tv | Shannon.it   Un blog al contrario che tratta di tecnologia e internet sociale, net business e realta’ virtuali

    September 30th, 2007 at 3:11 am

  8. Justin.TV Teams Up With On2 And Opens Network

    October 3rd, 2007 at 10:17 am

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Sucker

    June 22nd, 2007 at 5:23 am

    Couldn’t YouTube be “the youtube of live video?”

    At least, one of these services could be bought out and turned into “Youtube Live.”

  2. Jason Jenkins

    June 22nd, 2007 at 5:34 am

    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

  3. Laurent

    June 22nd, 2007 at 5:40 am

    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.

  4. Chris

    June 22nd, 2007 at 5:43 am

    what about kyte tv???

  5. Anand

    June 22nd, 2007 at 5:45 am

    I see monetization a huge problem..Even YouTube did not make huge money last year..

  6. Jason Jenkins

    June 22nd, 2007 at 5:49 am

    These companies have to create brands and merchandise around the technology or cash will always be a problem.

  7. fox video

    June 22nd, 2007 at 6:15 am

    nice Post .
    hier is a fun collection of firefox ad videos.maybe you would like to see it .
    http://firefox2007.org

  8. Adam Jochum

    June 22nd, 2007 at 6:37 am

    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.

  9. Jean Witter

    June 22nd, 2007 at 6:37 am

    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.

  10. Concrete Stain

    June 22nd, 2007 at 7:20 am

    Yeah its an open market;

    - but the problem with live video is ….

    - its not at its best / unless its viewed live.

  11. Yoel

    June 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 am

    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.

  12. Jesse Stevens

    June 22nd, 2007 at 7:35 am

    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.

  13. Kevin Aires

    June 22nd, 2007 at 7:38 am

    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?

  14. nusushika

    June 22nd, 2007 at 7:44 am

    But the Chinese Government is gonna block youtube for their people.

  15. Chris Neumann

    June 22nd, 2007 at 7:50 am

    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.

  16. Paul Bradish

    June 22nd, 2007 at 7:50 am

    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.

  17. MikeM

    June 22nd, 2007 at 7:51 am

    @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.

  18. Deepak

    June 22nd, 2007 at 7:57 am

    To avoid the hum drum of being chained to a webcam……

    WWIGO can be used :)

  19. Tom

    June 22nd, 2007 at 8:03 am

    Blogtv.ca is very popular in Canada. They launched it in April and have around 30 concurrent broadcasters all day long.

  20. Ryan Spahn

    June 22nd, 2007 at 8:09 am

    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.

  21. Marshall Kirkpatrick

    June 22nd, 2007 at 8:10 am

    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.

  22. Drama 2.0

    June 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 am

    “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.drama20show.com/200.....hollywood/

  23. Richard Groh

    June 22nd, 2007 at 8:24 am

    Sorry to nitpick
    but the sloppy spelling on TechCrunch
    is becoming very distracting.

    Would peer review help screen out the mistakes?

  24. Naveen

    June 22nd, 2007 at 8:39 am

    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.

  25. Jason Jenkins

    June 22nd, 2007 at 8:55 am

    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

  26. NeoTechie

    June 22nd, 2007 at 8:56 am

    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

  27. Stephanie Wilson

    June 22nd, 2007 at 9:02 am

    Content or not, I lOVE seeing the Supernova Conference on Ustream.tv! Thanks Ustream!

  28. michael

    June 22nd, 2007 at 9:08 am

    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?

  29. John P.

    June 22nd, 2007 at 9:24 am

    The only one that seems to be sticky is Stickam. Stickam has an “average stay” longer than Facebook’s.

    http://snapshot.compete.com/fa.....ic=avgStay

    Definitely still up in the air though.

  30. Haggie

    June 22nd, 2007 at 9:29 am

    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.

  31. Stephen

    June 22nd, 2007 at 9:33 am

    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.

  32. Blake Senftner

    June 22nd, 2007 at 9:37 am

    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.

  33. Jason Jenkins

    June 22nd, 2007 at 9:41 am

    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

  34. Izzyweb.it

    June 22nd, 2007 at 9:48 am

    $1.65 billion………..

    this is good for my site :-)

  35. Simon Foster

    June 22nd, 2007 at 10:14 am

    “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

  36. phil tadros

    June 22nd, 2007 at 10:18 am

    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.sportzshot.com/helm.....WAodiB87bg with a neuros http://www.neurosaudio.com/osd/osd.asp

    thank you for your time,
    much appreciated)

  37. race

    June 22nd, 2007 at 10:22 am

    * 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.

  38. truth be told

    June 22nd, 2007 at 10:34 am

    I just saw a story on NBC http://www.nbc-2.com/articles/.....leid=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.

  39. Robert Seidman

    June 22nd, 2007 at 10:35 am

    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?

  40. Saket Kumar

    June 22nd, 2007 at 10:35 am

    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/

  41. Audio 2.0

    June 22nd, 2007 at 10:40 am

    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.

  42. jackmayhofferr

    June 22nd, 2007 at 10:48 am

    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)

  43. Jeff Clavier

    June 22nd, 2007 at 10:51 am

    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!

  44. Marlon

    June 22nd, 2007 at 10:53 am

    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!

  45. Simon Foster

    June 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 am

    #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 :-)

  46. iplayer.tv

    June 22nd, 2007 at 11:01 am

    they are from england and they are called i player (i think)

  47. David Jobes

    June 22nd, 2007 at 11:02 am

    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.

  48. Robert Seidman

    June 22nd, 2007 at 11:57 am

    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.

  49. Sean

    June 22nd, 2007 at 12:03 pm

    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?

  50. Tommaso Tessarolo

    June 22nd, 2007 at 12:19 pm

    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.tessarolo.it/wo.....php/nettv/

  51. Jason Jenkins

    June 22nd, 2007 at 12:20 pm

    good point sean, thats is exactly how bubbles get created
    hint

  52. Ex Stickam Employee

    June 22nd, 2007 at 12:29 pm

    As hinted to above, if you dig deep into Stickam’s ownership, I think you will find a very dark and sexual background. Stickam is owned by the Japanese porn industry.

  53. InvestEveryMonth.com

    June 22nd, 2007 at 12:36 pm

    I don’t care who leads the pack as long as we have the ability to watch what we want to watch when we want to watch it.

    I can’t wait for the death of the monopoly media cable line-up.

    Cable companies seem to think they still own the living room, so I hope these technologies will be good at taking the diverse internet content and allowing us to easily watch it in our home entertainment centers.

  54. Amy Wilsch

    June 22nd, 2007 at 12:41 pm

    Drama sweetie, I prefer your critical analyses over your ’sarcasm’….. :) http://www.drama20show.com/about/
    Now, how about a REAL bio….
    Signed, an apparent cult follower

    @Simon, I only want “live” for things that are temporal - breaking news, updates on voting polls, bitch fests, celeb blatherings, chasing white broncos down an LA freeway. For anything else (music videos/ parodies, movies, even commericals) i prefer pre-recorded, edited & packaged = better quality. They have different purposes and at different times, different audiences. An old blog post, oudated news item, etc is boring whereas I’ve watched many movies and videos dozens of times over.

  55. kam-RA

    June 22nd, 2007 at 1:23 pm

    we have been using stickam for about six months to broadcast our daily internet TV show. we’ve been able to broadcast from quite a few locals outside of our studio (like Chengdu, China) because of stickam.

    We’ve looked at ustream… and it’s just way more clunky on the front-end. I’ve check out some of the other sites here… and from a production standpoint, stickam is very helpful and easy in terms of usability and viewablilty. Every internet user already has Flash installed on their computer if they are surfing the web for video content… so that right there is a major plus for stickam… because in order to watch their streams, you don’t need any extra software. You don’t’ even need a stickam account to watch our show… that keeps things simple and end-user friendly.

    Other services require external applications that you have to install. For our audience… we want to keep things as simple as possible. That’s where YouTube’s (and Google’s) basis for success is… in how simple it is to use their service. Stickam is functional & simple… the best of both worlds.

    If there is any problem with quality… i would blame the ISPs for taking so damn long to roll out high-speed internet throughout the land. Live video streaming takes a decent amount of bandwidth… so until the internet as a whole upgrades beyond slow 768 kbps DSL… folks will start broadcasting in higher quality.

    Also… why is there no mention of octoshape?

    that’s my 3 cents.

    -kam-RA from http://www.epilepticgaming.com

  56. Robert Hamburger

    June 22nd, 2007 at 1:51 pm

    Mogulus has a slick interface. Stickam has a lot going on around the clock. Ustream has the boringest channels of them all and it doesn’t work half the time. JustinTV has good stuff to watch and will suprise us all when it lets everyone give it a shot.

  57. Brian Solis

    June 22nd, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    Killer piece Nick! I know there are a lot of players and still more to come, but the market is really young and the masses are still largely untapped. In my opinion, the most interesting thing here, is that the the demographics for each of these companies is unique, with very little crossover.

    I’ve been experimenting with all of the platforms and have been writing a series on this subject, which I dubbed You.tv - Here’s a link to the latest, which references the other articles as well.

    http://www.briansolis.com/2007.....sting.html

  58. Operator11 ?!?!!!

    June 22nd, 2007 at 2:34 pm

    you forgot to mention one of the first services & most importantly the only one offering true tv studio functionality!!! operator11.com is certainly my pick of the bunch, not merely a tool for broadcasting oneself, its the only one where i can mix various streams live for one thing…got to dig deeper nick…

  59. Andy Fox

    June 22nd, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    Interesting.. I was directed to this post by a friend since i’ve worked for a couple of these companies listed (My friend asked if I was the ex-stickam employee above, i’m not).

    I agree with Robert Seidman that comparing this technology to Youtube is not really analogous.

    I do think there is a lot of room for this to grow and become more mainstream, but I’ve also seen that the “live” aspect is all at once enriching and limiting. Its a literal “you had to be there” type situation, and people on the web tend to have their own schedule. Which of course leads to a lot of boring content if you’re waiting around trying to lasso in your whole audience during a certain time period.

    I truly believe that people do want this technology, I’m just not so sure they know what to do with it once they get it. These companies oughta do their best to show people what to do with the technology and with any luck the public will follow suit after awhile.

    The other commonality i’ve seen is that these companies have had a tough time managing the live content so that you can easily find something that interests you. Categories and the rating and views schema just doesn’t really seem to apply the same way it does for recorded videos.

    The negatives aside, i’ve also seen some really great live video on most of these sites, and usually its just as simple as being in the right place at the right time and having a cool interaction or catching a cool live moment— then you suddenly say to yourself “this is awesome!”. But give yourself several hours sifting through boring shows and you might lose some of that enthusiasm.

    And there is a third sort of X factor here, people may decide they want to broadcast live video but would rather do it from their own page, blog or broadcast client. This afternoon I watched the NASA space shuttle Atlantis return to earth live on their website, and it was pretty cool. I did IM it to a few friends who were like “so what?”. Oh well.

  60. Jose Hernandez

    June 22nd, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    IMO, Live video will remain a relatively small piece of the online video entertainment pie - no comparisons to youtube please. Editing is important to storytelling takes time. Running a good live mix means lots of expensive equipment and labor and expertise. Justin.tv is artistically interesting, but far from entertaining. The mainstream is just figuring out how to shoot, edit and upload. Do you really expect the average user to pull together the equivalent of a TV station in her/his garage? I would say that the 80/20 rule will take effect, applied to the previous 20%.

    Cheers,

  61. Chris Pirillo

    June 22nd, 2007 at 4:06 pm

    Chris Pirillo, thankyouverymuch. Oh, and you might have wanted to show ‘em how we’ve been using Live tech to fuel recorded videos? It’s completely off your radar - and you’ve missed the bigger part of the Live story. :(

  62. Nick Gonzalez

    June 22nd, 2007 at 4:38 pm

    Sorry Chris. My “h” key somehimes hets shuck.

  63. Chris Pirillo

    June 22nd, 2007 at 5:02 pm

    hppens to the beast of us.

  64. Shawn C

    June 22nd, 2007 at 5:13 pm

    My question is which of these are supporting Mac users? Right now blogtv is not. I have tried broadcasting and they only pick up my sound and not my video. I am willing to check out some of the others in time, but I definitely need some Mac support before signing up.

  65. :: r y a n ::

    June 22nd, 2007 at 5:31 pm

    I’ve come to learn that reading the articles on TC is only 20% of the fun. The comments by far are the best and most entertaining. Much like the comments I see on the lifecasting sites. The content might be sorta interesting, but all the random self-promotion, posturing, and mindless drivel is by far better than any lifecaster. I’m fairly sure that’s why people pop on to all of the lifecasting sites. Everyone wants to see what others are saying.

    When mobile to mobile live video becomes more feasible “lifecasting” will die. The establishes sites will fight to become the #1 aggregator of the on-demand live streams from mobile devices.

  66. Eric Rice

    June 22nd, 2007 at 6:00 pm

    Why is justin.tv in the mix when it’s a content network not a service provider?

  67. Eric Rice

    June 22nd, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    And yeah, if Youtube goes live, watch how many people will broadcast live and how many people will watch. Just cuz YOU might think it’s dumb, doesn’t mean people will come out in droves.

    Kinda like, uh, YouTube….

  68. Peter Dilonte

    June 22nd, 2007 at 9:11 pm

    Who will be the video site for paid online video? Here are online software training provider examples:

    http://www.totaltraining.com
    http://www.lynda.com
    http://www.vtc.com
    http://www.atomiclearning.com

    It’s all about niche content and charging for it…right? When will the ‘all’ video from ‘anyone’ at ‘any’ quality go away?

  69. TrentL

    June 22nd, 2007 at 11:53 pm

    LiveVideo.com?

  70. Jimmy

    June 23rd, 2007 at 12:02 am

    wonderful comparison. This domain has already settled long ago. It is definitely a big question whether anyone including YouTube will make any money out of it.

  71. Dublin Bach

    June 23rd, 2007 at 12:11 am

    Viper Room, is another service, which allows you to make
    completely disposable video rooms

    http://www.cleverclogs.org/200....._vide.html

    or

    http://www.globalipvideo.com/i.....ash/Page26

  72. Wendy Smith

    June 23rd, 2007 at 1:13 am

    1) Youtube- They have the funds and future abilty to go with live streaming, but will split from their basetype of hosting vids and go with streaming content, they have enough users who can do it but who can say it will work. Wait and see if Google does anything….(and they need to fire Damien and Dump the Kewl Kids Which is causeing more problems, if any of you don’t know then that’s sad.)
    2)Stickam- They have been around for almost two years, but are mainly focused on the younger users 15-25, even though they have a strong older base of users on the site, they seem to ignore. They have been developing problems in keeping the site fresh with new ideas and features, let alone they(the staff) are self-interested(and not focusing on the users) on the site which is bringing it down. They need to develop it more.

    –After reading the above posts (37&51), Even though the money is stained a bit(if true to that claim), They Should Seriously try to tighten their standards, fire some Problem people and stop pushing their friends and projects and focus more on the users, which make up the site. Otherwise Stickam is Gonna Fail(if not already). They have the capability so…..
    p.s. Stockerd sucks!

    3)-Blogtv-Haven’t used the site-seems interesting
    4)-Mogulus-Haven’t used the site-seems interesting
    5)-Justin.tv-Not developed enough, give it time.
    6)-Ustream-they have a few good shows on but are limited with their server amoutn and also with using irc to chat on, unexperianced users will be deterred in using it. and Leo Laport Helped that site imeansly, hope he says on stickam.

    —-To make live video sites sucessful, Content and consistancy is needed, but also something interesting for people to watch. This is where public access television is going, the evolution of it.

  73. drew olanoff

    June 23rd, 2007 at 1:19 am

    I’ve been impressed with what Ustream is doing. Chris is really utilizing the technology to the max. It’s not just about live, it’s about the interaction that comes with it and then porting that experiences elsewhere to make people want to be a part of it. The folks who can do that will make Live work.

  74. Borislav

    June 23rd, 2007 at 2:12 am

    Joost (p2p tv) is going to replace all of them.

  75. The Director

    June 23rd, 2007 at 2:14 am

    You forgot Bambuser. They are way ahead of the rest and already made TV-shows and other big media LIVE from their mobile phones. http://bambuser.com/

  76. Antilos

    June 23rd, 2007 at 2:42 am

    There are much more channels and sites that can be “The YouTube Of Live Video”. First off, the clones of YouTube, and then all the sources that deservу to be “The YouTube Of Live Video”.

  77. moviedownloadr.com

    June 23rd, 2007 at 5:51 am

    hmmmmm……gootube

  78. Drew

    June 23rd, 2007 at 6:11 am

    While you understand that Alexa is not good for tracking video sites, I think by citing Alexa for anything these days, you are providing severely uncredited, inaccurate information and that it is one of the biggest flaws of your site and mission.

    My question remains: Who do you know that uses the Alexa toolbar? I have still never heard of anyone. Literally not a one. Someone speak out! There must be someone somewhere!

  79. Drew

    June 23rd, 2007 at 7:03 am

    On another note, having studied the explosion of video online, I find that the daily popular videos are more often one-hit wonders comprised of interesting content by accident or luck and then there are the cases where people try really hard on a regular basis.

    For some reason, out of all the people that try really hard, very few strike a chord with people on a regular basis.

    Beyond the novelty of just doing it (e.g. Justin), as with any medium - writing, photography, music - it usually takes a lot of talented people and a very creative and consistent angle to spark an interest with an audience that will persevere.

    While I am only describing a stereotype, not a rule, this is another case of the technology itself being more interesting than the content and I predict that even fewer people will emerge as live video stars in the tradition of a “show”.

    The “person” takes the focus for “who they are as a person” and yet even the most creative people - consider your favorite movie stars - tend to do better with a premeditated, scripted output. Even the night shows on TV and many of the jokes which seem so natural and impromptu are usually scripted and prerecorded.

    So aside from those really special people who are usually “always on”, and aside from time-specific media around determined live-events, streaming media may find its footing in culture more so for its non-entertainment applications (e.g.. social communication, meetings, supplemental information).

    As social networks grow and as we continue to broadcast more and more of our personal information from one-to-many, streaming becomes a more compelling option for feeling closer and connected.

  80. Gregor

    June 23rd, 2007 at 8:05 am

    How about live video for a specific usage need that strongly benefits from live-streaming. For example, Sclipo.com offers Live Video for training & education. As a user, I enjoy a video of a popular master showing how-to do something. With Sclipo Live Video, I can also connect with that master via web-cam, for a custom-tailored class (for which I will probably pay). http://sclipo.com/sclipoLive

  81. bdb

    June 23rd, 2007 at 10:14 am

    First off, I will spare you the shameless plug, as that is already been taken to a new level in these comments (I read them all), quite disgusting.

    Second, the abundance of stupid commentary that reveals a total lack of understanding about these platforms is startling. For example, Eric Rice (yet another idiot that thinks his residency in silicon valley makes him an expert) made a comment, “Why is justin.tv in the mix when it’s a content network not a service provider?” Why are there tutorials for how to manage your live stream (eg. turn camera mute on, etc.), a list of suggested HW, and a direct quote from Justin stating they are developing a platform?

    Most other examples are even dumber and I don’t have time to berate them in this morning rant.

    As for the indications of stickam’s questionable beginnings and interest in tawdry content, well that’s how the web was monetized in the early days when *it* was new. There’s always demand for this kind of stuff and another obvious example of an emerging technology being overrun with sexual content is virtual worlds (second life has no shortage of the same type of material).

    Most importantly, the ability to have your users watch the live feeds, submit the “quality” content snippets, and have users vote the best stuff to the top allows for the production of quality content that can be syndicated to the entrenched online video sites (youtube, etc). Not many people will watch the very mundane happenings of people’s everyday lives, but with the help of those who can stand it, the lifecasting platforms will slowly see their loyal viewers become the editors for the lifecasts they follow. Those lifecasters that fail to have incidents of interest, controversy, and drama will not develop that loyal following of 10-60 people to be their editors and will quickly quit.

    The next issue these platforms need to address is how to match the content of someone’s life online with the appropriate brands and companies that could sponsor the lifecaster. The company that makes it easy for the lifecaster to find the right brand, and brands to find the right lifecaster, will drive revenue and eventually find success (the simplicity of adwords made it a great success).

  82. Polaritypictures

    June 23rd, 2007 at 3:18 pm

    Ustream, I have used their services but, they need to expand their content more. Switch to a js chat module and redevelop themselves a bit.
    Youtube, With Big money backing them and lots of coders avail, they can add this feature quite easily, but with problems as developed in to Stickam(as where the backstage of youtube is going on)
    Kyte.tv, i’ve used it on my myspace to experiment with it, really have no use for it.
    Stickam, hmm. I’ve read this 12 hours ago, and been thinking about all the comments. Well hmm, All video services have the mature content capabilities that could prove very profitable, but in order for a site to succeed they have to invest in a solid userbase, which in turn makes a site successful. Future capabilities and features are always developing and everyone will have to deal with the mature content crossover. Stickam has the opprotunity to be more than it is now with proper handling and development. But so far they are loitering when they should be shining(trying to be nice).

    The main lesson for Stickam and all the others is, the people make the content and you have to cater to them as a whole and not as specific groups otherwise you will pidgeonhole your services and force users to find other places for themselves which cater to their needs. A Public live-video site has to be flexible and giving to it’s users who make it up, otherwise Youtube will not be anything if no one posted their vids on it.

    In the next 2 quarters will judge all the sites, with new technologies and program languages that have been released. Everyone is scrambling to get ahead of each other in assembling the Next Big Hit. Which Would be mobile communications, semantic websites and Web OS, and Intelligent personal web services has to be developed soon. So they have a lot of work to do. anyway( I’m getting hammered on skype so, I lost thought on this). ect, bleh.

  83. patricia

    June 23rd, 2007 at 3:18 pm

    In my opinion, by the time these guys build an audience, far bigger players will be rolling live video. But we’ll see.

  84. patricia

    June 23rd, 2007 at 3:22 pm

    @ bdb, agreed about the commentary and lack of understanding. It makes me nuts listening to people sometimes.

    @drama, agreed - Justin.tv’s life just wasn’t sexy. He seems like a sweet, cool guy but there was nothing appealing about him, or the new girl he brought on. I think he needs to reposition and fast - he’s obviously connected in the Valley. He should work on that. and YAY - love the blog!! Finally!

  85. Video Squad

    June 23rd, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    I think the platform and its quality and features is a big driver of who will be successful.

    I think the really critical piece is popularity and getting users glued to the tube. This has been the piece that changes with times and generations and is an ever-evolving formula.

    I would hate to see a piece of the formula become more “production” involved with these live broadcasts, but I think that is still what people are used to and will have to be an element.

  86. Jonathan Sethers

    June 23rd, 2007 at 7:23 pm

    @dbd

    “As for the indications of stickam’s questionable beginnings and interest in tawdry content, well that’s how the web was monetized in the early days when *it* was new. There’s always demand for this kind of stuff and another obvious example of an emerging technology being overrun with sexual content is virtual worlds (second life has no shortage of the same type of material).”

    WOW. You are clueless. That is how the web was monetized is LAUGHABLE. Get real man.

  87. bdb

    June 24th, 2007 at 3:18 am

    @Jonathan Sethers

    You dyslexic piece of crap, how about backing up your claim of,

    “WOW. You are clueless. That is how the web was monetized is LAUGHABLE. Get real man.”?

    Are you not aware of how much money was made in the 90’s (and is still made) with porn?

    You are a complete fuckwad for making such comments without the intelligence to simply support your statement.

    If you want to make ad hominem attacks, that’s cool, but don’t be so dickless as to make unsubstantiated arguments.

    Obviously offended by something else I stated, so you had to attempt to discount. Hmmm, live in the valley do ya?

  88. Albatross

    June 24th, 2007 at 4:12 am

    The old saying - “content is king” is probably also relevant to this discussion. user generated content, which is mostly what you find on youtube, is only one aspect of the viewing or entertainment factors. the TV broadcasting world and the movie industry, who generate copyrighted content, are already looking for new avenues of revenue generation ( Itunes, download sites etc ) but at the same time are also getting into the new delivery channels. we will probably find a mix of players - UGC players ( such as youtube and metacafe ) , new platform delivery players ( such as Joost ) and most likely a lot of telco’s and cellular operators ( ISP’s and cellular providers for content on the go ).

    the quality of content delivered over the Internet is improving by leaps and bounds, and SD and HD streaming content is appearing more and it is just a question of bandwidth availability at the home or on your mobile device.
    checkout this example of a “regular” service provider - with parameters very similar to any cable or satellite operator, who are “internetcasting” 6 live TV channels - http://www.watchindia.tv . If you look at their biz model ( assumed.. ), they are bypassing the local cable and satellite operators and going directly to consumers over the Internet with TV quality channels ( they are broadcasting / streaming at 400Kbps and 800Kbps ).

    here is another post reference to this site and a discussion thread on Digg:
    http://www.digg.com/television.....e_Internet

  89. scott

    June 24th, 2007 at 4:36 am

    what about ZATTOO?? (www.zattoo.com)
    and… TVU? (www.tvunetworks.com)

    they are the best out there..

    wanna talk live TV, do your homework! These apps RULE

  90. steve garfield

    June 24th, 2007 at 5:21 am

    I’ve recently been experimenting with some live video web sites. I think live can be an exciting part of video on the web.

    Chris Pirillo is using USTREAM.TV to capture live content and then post ’shows’ to video sites like YouTube and blip.tv. He embeds sponsor logos and live text chat in the video. Pretty cool.

    I used Operator11.com the other day for the first time and was a LIVE guest in Rome at that Vlog Camp.

    This was very exciting because I was able to roll in my most recent video from Spices of Life and show people what i was talking about when I explained that I shot the show on a Nokia N93/N95, edited it in Final Cut Pro, and hosted it on blip.tv.

    Photo:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/s.....600814833/

    Video:
    http://operator11.com/shows/1348/episodes/4644

    I signed up to test Mogulus, which sounds like it will allow adding clips from your PC and the web to the stream. That would be very cool, but sounds like it does not have live chat.

    I think that having a live stream with viewers who can participate with chat and also who can switch in and become the host is real interactive video on the web. Without live it’s more static. So if you are looking for true interactivity where the audience actually participates by coming on the show with video or even just chat, live is very exciting.

    I think that as soon at TV sees what is going on here, they will jump on this… They just don’t understand yet.

    MTV might be the first in the US whre they had a video wall so viewers could ask questions live with webcams, but I think Canada had this a while ago, and the test I did with Rome was also broadcast on satellite on SkyTV. So they are ahead in that.

    So I think the important things about this are:

    1. It’s live and participatory vs. recorded and static. It’s not really participatory unless the presence of the viewer changes the content of the show.

    2. Viewers can host. This gives you true interactivity and gives people a reason to visit at certain times. Appointment viewing is back. Even though those people might just be 10% of the audience, message board history has proved that 80% of people come back to watch the 10% generate content.

    3. Live Chat. More interaction to add content to the live show.

    4. Connecting with others around the world. World Peace.

  91. Dale Martin

    June 24th, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    I’ve kept up on this a little and I believe Justin.tv is doing the best job. He started with one live show of his life and has added shows each with their own audience.

    By the time he opens his network up to the public there will already be several popular channels in place with many viewers. Additionally, the interface is fun, friendly and useful and we can assume this will continue on the open network.

    I’ve been enjoying a show called Ride Share ( http://www.justin.tv/rideshare ) where a young man has decided to spend his summer giving anyone who wants a ride anywhere in North America as long as they are willing to tell their story and pay half of the gas money.

    Very cool idea and a good demonstration of the technology for Justin.

  92. Junker Jorge

    June 24th, 2007 at 3:39 pm

    Your website sucks! This lame story took forever to load and nearly crashed the browser! Please Diggers, don’