Joost’s two year old online video service was a pretty darned smart idea when it first launched.
Instead of streaming video through the Joost website, users would download a Mozilla-based client and watch it there instead. The user experience could be more tightly controlled. And more importantly, the Joost client had built in person-to-person file sharing. That meant Joost had lower bandwidth bills. It also meant that Joost didn’t need to worry about overloading servers while showing live events - users would just grab the stream from others automatically.
But Joost bet wrong, as the whole world, led by YouTube and then Hulu, got comfortable with Flash as the delivery method for video. Showing video on Flash meant users could deep link to specific videos, and also embed stuff they liked on their own sites. With the benefit of hindsight it all seems sort of obvious.
Joost adapted, though, giving users the option of an all-Flash site in September. Some international users would still be required to use the software to reduce bandwidth costs, and the company was hoping U.S. users would eventually install it, too.
Today they announced they’re discontinuing the software application altogether, but they aren’t saying why. It’s clear that Joost’s strategy has been fluid over the last few months as they try to figure out a way to compete with the much more successful Hulu. It’s honestly not clear that they really can. Joost doesn’t offer anything particularly unique or compelling to users over competing sites with proprietary content (Hulu with Fox and NBC, TV.com with CBS).
Joost raised a big $45 million round of financing way back in 2006. It’s not clear how much of that is left. If they want to succeed they’re going to have to do something pretty radical.
See all
Post
Mike, in hindsight it is easy to be right, I always try to think about that before opening my mouth.
That being said, I never really got the whole point of it and Hulu totally made it redundant. I absolutely love Hulu and I hope they get a channel or whatever they need to stream their content through the xbox360 or windows MCE. I would give up dish network for torrents + hulu + netflix.
Joost Number one
http://tinyurl.com/4rdhmc
Joost had a nice user interface, but it was rather bulksome and memory hogging to actually use. The overall scheme and content wasn’t worth the install and also concerns over p2p bandwidth problems were another reason to not use it.
I was one of the few that had the initial alpha invite and can admit the system was nice, but even I was hesitant to use it. WIth sites like Hulu, there’s no reason to waste our limited bandwidth in helping stream that content to others. Joost was a good idea, that failed in execution. The web videos isn’t all that great either, but it’s a definite step up.
Right now I’m using a mixture of Hulu + Surf the Channel (http://www.surfthechannel.com) and Free tube (http://www.freetube.us.tc) to solve my whoes. I’m more into webisodes and unique content like that then commercial tv shows which let’s face it are on the decline, I don’t think CBS/NBC will be happy considering that they just can’t profit off that stuff since it beats out their content, regardless of what celebrities they troll out on their shows.
Also check out http://www.joost.uni.cc for a summary of the hype and workings of the Joost p2p program. Very interesting stuff.
The same strategy for VoIP didn’t work for Video.
Ask any teenager and they will tell you the reason Flash succeeded for video is because it plays almost instantly.
Creating a p2p infrastructure company, and building a content distribution portal, are 2 ENTIRELY different businesses.
It is the equivalent of a Television network building out a Tier-1 backbone infrastructure.
If Joost were to succeed at a content distribution portal–which requires expertise in content licensing, user acquisition, branding, playback/navigation experience– they would simply go to a vendor for the best p2p infrastructure. Furthermore, why should Joost spend all of their $$, focus, resources on building out the infrastructure, if they don’t have the content or the users that can use it??!!
Bottom line is that start-ups have a tough enough time getting one business right. It made no sense (even at the beginning) for Joost to go after two businesses, especially with all of the barriers that P2P presents (like having to get users to install a client vs. just simply clicking and streaming).
I’m pretty surprised that Niklaus Zenstrom went down this path. He’s an entrepreneur I respect and who typically doesn’t make these kinds of mistakes.
Ah, but BitTorrent also started a content portal and it, uh, lasted almost a year!
fuckin a man
Okay guy, after staring at this, I guess you meant, “fuckin’ a, man!” Which I kinda sympathize with.
But, please, don’t say that Joost’s baffling moves are the result of “fuckin a man”.
But, technically, IT COULD BE TRUE!
I think maybe he just left off the ‘g’
amazing.
Mike-
Great update on joost- I thought that they had an original content deal with major studio when they got the huge raise and valuation.
anyway all i can think about today is that facebook is getting 600k fresh a day. And when i used connect to comment here it was the easiest thing since amazon 1 click-
im starting to think they will be a google and myspace better get the music thing nailed quick
I wished Joost had some exclusive stuff. There was some awesome videos, but the extra application wasn’t worth it. It was ahead of its time.
They could have used the RTMF protocol release by Adobe which allows P2P communication among flash players. The main advantage of using flash media player as a means of delivery would be its proliferation in my opinion ..
Adobe is also working on something else for delivery of P2P video - Using some Octoshape Grid Delivery Technology, which is currently being used by CNN. Not sure if its only for live video - not many details out yet on that front. The first official appearance on this topic is in here:
http://weblogs.macromedia.com/.....ences.html
@techcrunch - The facebook connect option for comments is not available when i click ‘reply’ on an existing comment. Is that by design, or is it a bug?
RTMFP does not support multicast or swarming, so it’s not really an option for Joost.
This kind of things are hard to predict. P2P worked great (and still does) for Skype. The value proposition was there, but video providers such as YouTube, Hulu and many others ate the costs and made P2P for video sharing irrelevant (at least at large scale).
However, while I see how Hulu can be cash flow positive, I have a hard time to see how YouTube can make a good revenue generator. Having a service which provides almost unlimited video upload and download to anybody is kind of surreal (nice, but surreal).
by the way ,Joost still can continue they LIVE SHOW, and as a Chinese ,I have to say that the hulu is not OK, beacuse this site don’t available for asis.
Hulu is great for the US (as a Canadian I’m jealous) but Joost seems to be in a decent position to grab the rest of the world.
In the short term, it might be tougher for them to cover their bandwidth costs since ad rates outside of the U.S. are lower
However, I can’t really see NBC and Fox being open enough to the partnerships they would need to dominate the market.
Joost’s gradual fade into oblivion is hardly a surprise to those of us who were suspicious of the hype surrounding this endeavor.
There has been a sea change of audio-visual consumption pattern, and it is very clear — people want short bursts of info-tainment that they can interact with.
Long-form slick productions demand the viewers to shut off part of their brains and stare at the monitors for a long period of time, which is counter-intuitive to what computers are about.
Hulu is in danger of following Joost’s fate.
didn’t the joost strategy include a set-top box (bit like apple iTV)? P2P still has broad possibilities at that level (like someone said in an earlier post, netflix + torrents + hulu). Fot the non-short stuff…
Just because Joost failed to go viral doesn’t mean the technology failed. P2P streaming still makes all the sense in the world. They just didn’t have the right strategy to capture a solid user base.
Big Money Wins. Hulu and Youtube have the pockets to not care about the costs and ride it out to see what happens. Joost has no Google or CBS to benefit from its traffic and popularity.
Not sure why you can’t have P2P video in Flash with deeplinking and embedding. It seems like someone will figure out how to do this. Perhaps someway to share your bandwidth with the site and NOT with the specific file…
Not gonna happen. A) it’s impossible. B) Adobe isn’t going to rock the boat on their streaming monopoly. Content providers like the control they have over their digital content. P2P also means fewer server licenses.
That’s not true. The latest flash version includes UDP P2P support - it will be enabled when Adobe ships their next media server. I imagine that’s Joost’s end game plan - which, as you say, will reduce bandwidth costs.
PPLive in China is already demoing Flash P2P video:
http://newteevee.com/2008/09/1.....o-youtube/
It certainly isn’t impossible.
I agree with the earlier commenter who said it was a strategy failure, not a technology one. P2P still makes lots of sense for popular video.
@Previous comments,
It’s impossible for an 3rd party developer to do it in actionscript is what I meant to say. Yes, Adobe can do whatever the hell it wants with their platform, and yes, Stratus allows *one* form of P2P. But if you look closer, it’s only for 1:1 p2p and is designed for collaboration-type applications. To do anything beyond this, you’d have to modify the flash engine, which defeats the purpose of using flash as you would then have a branched distro.
Could never understand the hype of joost i’m sure Mike had a stake in them ? the first of many over hyped companies to go tits up in the next 12 months.
It would goo 4 them to continue live streams of sporting events and distribute or start a 24/7 INternet News Channel similar to what CNN is on cable TV.
I no longer have cable (Mac Mini connected to LCD TV see http://techavid.com) and I miss 24/7 cable news.
too bad. I thought it was a great concept and I liked using it to watch stuff…
Joost market policy could be better. They (mostly) try to compete with Hulu or YouTube on their fields, rather than focus on completeing worldwide the smaller (cable) chanels businesses with hihg quality online streeming services.
The problem Joost (and others have had) with P2P is that price deflation in the CDN market has made use of the technology a moot point for large sites. With so much competition from Akamai, Level3, Limelight, etc. there is really no need to use P2P unless you like the press and/or have no capability to negotiate a CDN contract.
http://hmmconvenient.blogspot.com
If you look at this as a stage for technological superiority vs content, it’s another proof that content is really what consumers are interested in. They don’t really care how you deliver it to them, technology costs decrease in the long term but content is still King.
I know for a fact that Joost hasn’t given up on P2P they will use it for delivering Live content and possibly HD in the future ,
There are plans for in Q1 2009 (well maybe not with the economy) for a rollout of the Live browser plugin Joost trailed for “March Maddness” earlier this year .
well i am sure its a gr8 idea however i think they were years ahead for it considering the market so may be they can launch it again say in next few years and they may rock again.
No where in the email that Joost sent out about the discontinuation of the ORIGINAL software client does it say Joost are going to stop using p2p altogether.
I guess what I am waiting to see out of all these streaming clients (Joost, Hulu, Slingbox) is live p2p using flash. I wonder if that is even possible even with Adobe working on it.
If I could share something with my peer network, who would know my tastes and direct me to what I like, and have it show up at my door step on demand it would make veiwing more ubiquitous.
Just putting it out there.
Amazing how many of you saw the issues with Joost when it first came out. You were all so smart and didn’t believe the “hype”. Such bull! Go back and read the posts from 2007 - *all* the smart money was on Joost, with only a few very minor exceptions. Even if they didn’t win in the end and made some very wrong moves, they innovated and created this space - which if you’re reading this is likely a heck of lot more than you did.
Michael, can you confirm Joost had given up on P2P streaming altogether? As far as I can tell the letter doesn’t indicate that.
If Joost (descendent to the blood line of Kazaa and Skype) could not make P2P streaming work I wonder if anyone can. Unicast streaming sites like Hulu and youTube are bleeding money fast due to bandwidth costs paid to CDNs. P2P streaming offered an alternative, or perhaps not.
We (Joost) moved from a downloaded client to a website with in-browser viewing 2 months ago. As we mentioned to Michael at that time, it has been our direction to eventually discontinue supporting the Joost application. The joost.com website has been growing nicely and we are thankful to all the users who have enjoyed our service. We have also seen a very nice adoption for our iPhone application launched just 2 weeks ago.
As for the P2P technology. We do have a significant amount of intellectual capital built up around it. As we find the right application for that technology, we will reintroduce it into a service.
We will endeavor to keep Michael informed on our directions as a company (not under embargo, of course).
ROTFL.. Michael. do u ever listen?? seriously.
@Kate, I completely empathize with you. Here you have this idiot but famous blogger with equally stupid blog following (which includes me). The problem with Michael is that he simply doesn’t think twice before posting. I mean no-client doesn’t mean NO P2P.. you *can* have P2P on flash as other posters have mentioned.. But then its too much to except from a “tech blogger” like Michael who spends most of his time dog-fighting with his equally stupid french buddy.
Seriously Michael, these are bad signs. I follow you coz you were the first.. Stop the stupidity or else u ll go into oblivion. Trust me on this.
Joost are real pioneers in online media, they are really the first to convince a studio to put much of their stuff online and introduce major advertisers to the online video space. The thing is that they hoped that joost as an app will be as strong as skype. Well, there are many reasons why even at the time it didn’t make sense. When Hulu came it was very easy to see the faults of joost and just make sure they don’t fail in the same hols. Any way, it seem now that there is lack of content both at Joost and even hulu and Networks and studios need to make a major decision whether the online video model work for them and they make all their content avalible online.
the answer is obvious tat Youtube and hulu works with a flash player tat can play instantly any type of video and now the whole market of videos is grabbed by youtube ,it is very difficult for any of its competietor to defend itself against them.changes shud be made and shud act according to the changing environment
regards
aarthabenn
Truehotdeals-Deals you cant resist
HA!
I knew it!
Anyway, burning a large part on those $45M on specific P2P client, then plug-in research & optimization is a total waste of money.
In less than 2 years, Adobe will have come up with P2P ability in its Flash plug-in. More than 99% computers shipped with Flash.
Why would you bother of even think of it? Let it happen and optimize the way it will work. In the meantime, go for streaming/prog. download and tweak things to make them less costly.
That’s for sure what Google/YouTube has been doing (even if they still could push things a lil more)!
Not good news to Joost founders. They say that the next startup after the first successful one, results in a big failure. It just happened to Joost after Skype.
Not good news to Joost founders. They say that the next startup after the first successful one usually results in a failure. It just happened to Joost after Skype.
Just to repeat and emphasize:
Hulu is great, but it’s U.S. only.
Just because most readers of techcrunch live in the U.S., don’t let the echo chamber replace awareness of the world beyond your borders.
We would love to see Hulu in Canada, but no dice. So, we use Joost…and we are just a tiny little segment of non-Hulu viewing eyeballs.
Looks like the Ustream founder Brad was right:
(saw this in a portfolio.com article a year ago:
Previously, all Joost users had to download and install special software. “The download may seem like a small barrier,” says Brad Hunstable, co-founder of user-generated video site Ustream, “but it’s a huge mental barrier.”
http://www.portfolio.com/cultu.....Tube#page2
This is a real shame, I liked the way that Joost strayed from the ordinary. Although I personally fell they provide a better service currently than Hulu.