Announced today: something called “Open Media.”
Real naming chutzpah here; makes me think of this list of operational code names.
Archive for the 'Video' Category
13
Nov
Operation Open Media
Last week, Fred Wilson wrote a post about why the embed code matters, and argued they are what’s important because they are “what makes video go viral.”
I’d go further: the embed code is the new hyperlink for video. Not having an embed code for your video is like not having a hyperlink for your site or web page.
Now go wrap your mind around that idea. Something we’ve been doing that the past 6-8 months over here at vod:pod!
Commentary, analysis and posts are flying around the ether the past week in the wake of Viacom’s take-down demands to YouTube, and in the past day, NBC’s threatening words directed at YouTube.
Oddly, many bloggers are simply doing Google’s bidding by simplistically portraying NBC and Viacom as VERY BAD and Google/YouTube as VERY GOOD . When, in fact, this is really a pure and naked power struggle between a rising media behemoth (GOOG) and two old media empires whose golden years are, most likely, behind them (Viacom, NBC).
Many in the commentariat seem to think that the best possible outcome for us is to have all video available on YouTube. And that media companies are idiots for not recognizing YouTube as just a nice, wonderful free promotional engine for video programming. (“Damned fools”, cried one prominent blogger in exasperation).
It all sounds so seductive and alluring if you think about it for only a second; but if you think about it longer than that, it’s not at all clear to me that having all the video on Google (it’s not YouTube, it’s Google), so that it consolidates its position as the dominant place to search for AND watch video, will ultimately benefit us the people.
Google has been perceived as a benign and even helpful power in the search space because their search results bring people to your site. Not true with YouTube. You find the video on YouTube, you watch the video on YouTube.
The declining media powers know that if all their content is available on YouTube — and everyone else’s, too — YouTube will be in an unbelievable position of power and leverage, as we’ve discussed before.
So I have a simple way of framing the choice. Which of these two options is better:
1. All the video we want available on one site, YouTube, owned and controlled by Google?
2. All the video video we want available on millions of sites, owned and controlled by hundreds of thousands of entities?
I think the answer is pretty straightforward.
The complaint with NBC and Viacom shouldn’t be that they’re forcing YouTube to take down their content, but that they aren’t doing more to make more (or all) of their video available online, for free.
And in the end, as we’ve said before on this blog, we think that the trend will be towards distributed, decentralized availability of video, and ultimatley there will be hundreds of thousands or even millions sites that provide video that is “shareable” — probably using flash, probably with an embed code. Why would we expect video, after all, to be any different than other media types on the web?
12
Jan
The iPhone
I use Apple products, but am no Apple fanboy. That said, I want one. An iPhone that is. And I’ll take the Apple TV while we’re at it.
Predictably, after the near-24 hour initial buzzfest, we have a counter-attack by a squadron of the “I woke up this morning and wondered why the hell I was so excited yesterday” journalists and bloggers. The Dick Cheney School of Realism Commentariat, those weary (and wary) been-there done-that skeptics who recognized the fast one Millenial Hipster Steve (almost) pulled on all of us. But who awoke the following morning, jolted back to reality by the strong coffee, and hit the keyboards and did their duty to remind us IT WASN’T THAT BIG A DEAL (and besides it’s really expensive and it doesn’t have a keyboard and we were just temporarily sucked in by the Reality Distortion Field).
(An aside: Paul Boutin caught the zeitgeist best on valleywag on Wednesday morning. And Walt Mossberg had the best, most balanced reaction combining genuine enthusiasm with a little wait-and-see. UPDATE: and I commend the Kottke roundup for it’s thoroughness, and Lefsetz is as always a fun read.)
Except. Except. That I don’t think any of us have seen a device that looks so cool, that we’ve all really, really wanted (like, tomorrow, Steve), not for a long time.
My view is, forget all the posturing, the knowing cyncism and give it up for Apple. One could make an argument — looking at just the phone and iPod combo — that this isn’t that big a deal. That other devices have had similar functionality for a while. That you would be insane to pay $499 for this thing. But that misses the point. The main thing about this phone.
What got me excited today watching the replay of the keynote (I waited 48 hours purposefully to watch to see what it would feel like after the hype and counter-hype) is the “internet communicator.” The fucking cool as shit web browser where you can zoom in by pinching your fucking fingers (Bob Lefsetz just took control of my keyboard for a moment). Where you can dial up google maps and info on an actually decent sized screen, get a phone number and just dial. How can you not get excited about that, or not want one?
I want one because it will be the first time you’ll be able to have a portable device that really does work as a phone, an iPod, and an internet web browser (genius mantra in the keynote). The other smart phones have been truly, epically crippled on this last front. It’s the full featured, sexy internet browsing that changes the game, and makes it a must have device for me.
And I suspect will make it a must-have for other people. Who never needed (or, frankly, wanted) a crackberry or BlackJack or Sidekick texting device, but instead want to be able to go out, get on the subway, listen to some music, look up the address for that lunch spot your meeting your friends, dial them maybe if you’re running a little late, and do all of it with just one device. That works as designed, and even brings a sense of wonder and joy while using it.
Also. I’m surprised no one has discussed, or seemed to think much about, the upgrade cycle opportunity. The folks who bought iPods in 2002 or 2003 or 2004, and will be ready for an upgrade to their iPod in the next twelve to eighteen months. What are you gonna buy? A Zune? A San Disk? A new iPod without the phone or Internet Machine just to save a couple hundred bucks? No, no no. People are going to be buying these iPhones to replace or supplement their old iPods. The memory issue is only a big issue for us music wonks.
If it works as well as it demos, this thing will be a huge hit. Perhaps even bigger than the iPod. Maybe Steve Jobs isn’t the nicest guy (I don’t know), maybe Apple’s too closed and proprietary. But this is the coolest thing I’ve seen in a long time, and Apple deserves a big hand if the real device turns out as good as it looked on Tuesday.
Scoble’s blog today points to a post by Tom Foremski about the fact there are 61 video sharing sites out there.
My guess is that there are going to be a lot more; more like sixty-one thousand. That’s right, 61,000 sites that (a) offer video, (b) in flash (or its future equivalent), and (c) allowed the video to be embedded by the users of the site.
Why? Because:
a. Globally, there are lots of companies and people who own or make video programming;
b. The combination of broadband and flash had made it trivial to distribute video on the Internet now, and for people to watch it;
c. Allowing your viewers to take the programming and “embed” it into their blogs, myspace pages is just smart distribution; and,
d. Video (and audio) unlike text and photos can be delivered in microchunks, untethered from their home site, and still make you money (because you could put ads in the stream if you wanted).
Perhaps this is another way to look at this: one could consider text sites (blogs and others) that support RSS “text sharing” sites. There are probably millions, maybe tens of millions, of those text sharing sites, and I think we’re comfortable with that notion. We should expect nothing less with the video space.
04
Dec
Say Hello to VodPod
Dear loyal readers, all twelve of you (hi mom and dad!) — wanted to let you know the new online service I’ve been working on is open for business as of today.
So what is VodPod? It gives you both a place and tools to you build a video collection - with your own videos that you upload to us, or videos you add in from YouTube and dozens of similar sites — and then watch with your friends or other people who share your interests. Check it out.
Now please allow me to indulge in a bit of solipsism (I do try to avoid it, can’t help myself today). While VodPod is first and foremost the result of a great collaboration with my two partners (Scott and Spencer) since June 1 or so, it’s also the culmination in some ways of things I’ve thought about or worked on for quite a while.
Including the challenge of how people find the video programming they want on the Internet. I first worked on this problem almost 10 years ago when I led the effort to build the RealGuide, the first (or one of the first two or three) comprehensive streaming media guides on the Internet. It was a sort of Yahoo directory for streaming media, with links to the most interesting audio and video clips on the Internet. The big mistake we made was that the guide was the product solely of our editors. It was good, but necessarily limited in scope — the people who used it couldn’t contribute to it.
VodPod is the opposite. We have no team of editors, there are just the three of us here. You are the editors, you do the aggregating. You build your own Pod; you decide what you want friends or others to watch. I guess that makes VodPod a people-powered video aggregator, and I quite like that.
Building VodPod has also reflected an increasing fascination and love I’ve had with people-powered services. Starting with eBay and Live365 back in “Web 1.0″ era, continuing through to services now like YouTube, Last.fm (my personal favorite of the bunch), flickr, WordPress, SecondLife and others. All those — and others — have been big influences, and we’ve tried to tip our hat to a few on our company blog. They all do one thing really well — they know and remember that you’re in charge. I hope we do that as well.
Last, building VodPod has been the product of great collaboration, with some very smart, fun, and creative thinkers. A three-day brainstorming session last December with Matt Webb and Jack Schulze provided inspiration for several ideas that can be found in the final VodPod service. We’ve been fortunate to work with Cecil Juanarena (one of the best designers in the business — you could do worse than to look at his CD-ROM designs from the mid-90s, they provide a masterclass on interaction design for broadband) and Steve Mack at LuxMedia (who has literally written the book on streaming video, and more importantly has great instincts and judgment) on the design and user experience of VodPod. To the extent you like how it works and looks, credit them.
Most of all, a tip of the hat to my two VodPod colleagues and partners, Scott and Spencer. It’s been a great, fun ride so far, let’s keep it going.
30
Oct
Comedy Central & YouTube
I write a post about the dilemma faced by Comedy Central and Viacom executives on Thursday of last week (and what they should do about their clips up on YouTube now that’s it’s been bought by Google) and then I read over the weekend YouTube is taking down Comedy Central clips on their site. I assume it’s all due to the power of this blog…
As I wrote in the last post, the game has changed now that Google has bought YouTube, and folks at places like ComedyCentral are ensuring their future impotence if they allow GooTube to become the place to find all video on the Internet (again, Google bought YouTube because it is the current defacto place to search for video). As much as they’ll be portrayed as villains or idiots (or both) for forcing YouTube to take down their clips, this is clearly the right strategic move.
But getting their stuff off YouTube isn’t sufficient. What they now need to do, quickly and urgently, is get those clips up on the Comedy Central site. Allow their users to post the clips there. Allow them to embed them into their blogs, MySpace pages, and so on. Give them a better service with higher quality than they got on YouTube. In essence, match the stick (pulling down clips on YouTube) with the carrot (getting the videos up on Comedy Central). Comedy Central should send a message to as many of the folks who posted the videos on YouTube, and invite them to upload the videos to ComedyCentrals video sharing platform (if they haven’t built it yet, they had better do so soon).
If Comedy Central doesn’t do this, doesn’t give their audience what they want on a site they own and control, then they’ll just be playing a game of whack-a-mole. The clips will come down YouTube, but they’ll show up somewhere else, and we’ll all migrate to that new place to get our time-and-place-shifted Comedy Central fix.
Now that Google has bought YouTube, what do you do if you’re an executive in the new media division of, say, Viacom? Or NBC? Do you partner with Google? Do you roll your own service? Do you sue them? Some combination of all three?
In the past year, whenever a media rights owner has protested their stuff was up on YouTube, they would invariably be met with a chorus of blogger-know-it-alls (hey, I might have even jumped in!) telling them they were 20th century dinosaurs, that they should let their stuff flow freely over YouTube, get over their issues, enjoy the free exposure, and join us right-thinking Web 2.0 people. That may have made sense when YouTube was a scrappy, independent start up.
But does it make sense now? Now that Google owns them? Is doing a license deal with GooTube basically ensuring you’ll have the same dependency on them in 5 years that we have on the Middle East (and Venezuela!) for oil?
Maybe. Consider this quote from Chad Hurley earlier in the summer:
I think we’re in a good position because we have created a marketplace for video and it is this this natural network effect that we’ve created where we have the most content becuase we have the largest audience and that’s going to keep continue to drive each other. (emphasis is mine)
Both sides, both the content coming in and and the audience we’re creating. And it’s very similar again to the eBay issue where they had an auction product that gained critical mass. Yahoo! came by and started creating their own technology, potentially better technology, but they didn’t have the consumers there to pull it off. So we feel we’re potentially in the same position with our video site.
I think this claim, that YouTube has built a network effect like eBay’s, is harder to unravel than it seems on the surface. I’ve thought about it a lot, and am not sure Hurley’s right. There are reasons why true peer-to-peer marketplaces like eBay tend to generate centralized, easy-to-defend network effects; I’d argue YouTube is not really such a marketplace.
Instead, what I do think has happened is that YouTube is now the defacto place to search for video, and has built a temporary network effect around that phenomenon. The reason this has occured is because (a) the stupid way we’ve architected video on the Internet to date makes it hard to search for files and play them back easily, and (b) YouTube’s users have the most definitive library of video clips ever created. Some of it, uh, not really legally licensed.
To illustrate: try searching for Daily Show clips on the Internet with Google, and then repeat on YouTube. It’s clear which is better. I am now trained to look for the latest DailyShow clips (and almost every other type of video I can think of) on YouTube. I think that’s why Google bought YouTube, by the way. Not just for the so-called eyeball traffic.
That GooTube is in a position to own video search is a very dangerous thing for media companies and rights holders. If GooTube is able to maintain their position and build upon it, if “a” above doesn’t get solved and “b” continues, GooTube becomes the Internet version of Comcast, but with 80% homes passed, not 20%. It becomes the one company you have to do a deal with if you want your content seen (because everyone is going there to find video, because general search on the Internet doesn’t work).
So, if you’re the head of MTV New Media, do you go and license all your content to GooTube now, helping them to cement their position as the one place to go for video online, and ensuring your future subservience to them? Doesn’t seem like the smart move to me.
I don’t think suing helps, either, by the way. Although I’m sure that will be a strategy for some (you can see people licking their chops to get some Google cash). I think the better strategy is to compete. It’s not that hard to build a great sharing site like YouTube’s. Go do that if you’re MTV.
If Comedy Central had a site that was as easy and fun to use as YouTube’s, where I could find a great stash of Daily Show and Colbert clips, where I could embed them in my blog or get the latest clips delivered via RSS, I’d be happy. I’d be even happier if I could get a high quality version of the clips — I’d probably be willing to subscribe — that I could download without DRM.
The great danger for GooTube is that their temporary network effect will go away if their library is diminished. The vaunted network effect of the old Napster amounted to very little when the music was taken away. Same with GooTube. If they have to start taking down lots and lots of clips from the service, their position as the place to search is diminished. If people like MTV and Comedy Central really compete, and offer compelling services with their programming (and indeed, MTV has started with their beta iFilm service), and quit hiding the clips behind javascript so they can’t be properly indexed and searched, that will also hurt GooTube (but will help Google!).
So, I think the answer to the question I asked at the top is: don’t do a deal with GooTube (or do a very, very limited deal); ask them to remove the unlicensed stuff you own from their service; but don’t do that until and unless you’re able to offer a video service that is just as good as YouTube’s, if not better. Either your own, or through a partner.
Marc Cuban has a series of posts on YouTube and the DMCA safe harbor provisions that are worth a read, here and here.
Cuban in the first post essentially argues that to comply with the DMCA you have to be “the master of your domain” and compares YouTube with Revver:
Youtube lawyers are saying that as long as their users are ignoring copyright law, its not Youtube’s fault. Youtube lawyers do not feel that Youtube is the master of their own domain. But thats ok because the DMCA laws say that if you give up control of your own domain, you dont have to worry about copyright laws.
Revver on the other hand has chosen to be a master of its own domain. It will post no video it doesnt approve. It is a master of its own domain.
Cuban goes on to argue that the Revver approach is the only that that clearly complies with the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, and that YouTube (and presumably others who follow YouTube’s lead) may not be able to avail themselves of the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA in the slew of lawsuits that will invariably be filed.
I have no idea if this is right, or not. The lawyers and the courts will be the ultimate arbiters. What I think is more interesting is to discern the interests of the major rights holders, and whether they are likely to gang up on YouTube and others like them as they did Napster. And I think this is much murkier than people assume.
Mainly because some of the biggest media companies are now in the game, chasing after YouTube with vigor. MySpace, a crown jewel now in the NewsCorp empire, is the most prominent of these. Go on to MySpace and search for non-Fox-owned mainstream video programming, and you’ll find it aplenty. Viacom, which now owns iFilm, is also in the game now with the new beta version of iFilm (where you can also find non-Viacom-owned media).
With Google now in possession of YouTube, and NewsCorp and Viacom fully in the video hosting game (with plenty of potentially “illegal” content on both sites), the landscape is more complex. It will be interesting and fun to see whether Disney or TimeWarner — just to pick two mega-media conglomerates — go after these three.
I’ve been mulling the Goog-YouTube acquisition the past week and wanted to share some thoughts.
First off, it’s impressive to see GOOG effectively admit their own video product wasn’t going to succeed. That’s a hard and difficult thing for companies to do.
Second, the “Google is an engineering-driven company” meme is now dead. If it were such a company, GOOG would have done what Microsoft has done — sit on the sidelines, and proclaim building it is cheaper than buying it. Instead, Google saw a big, fat inventory-rich service, swallowed its collective pride, and snapped it up (conveniently blocking Yahoo and MSN from encroaching on their dominance of the Internet advertising space at the same time).
But what’s really struck me about the acquisition is that it so perfectly captures this moment and time in our business, and that this particular moment is so full of ironies. We’ve come full circle to a point we last reached in, say, 1998 or 1999, where acquisitions are not driven and dictated by quaint notions of math and value, but are instead about showing you have momentum and are a dynamic player.
To dicker over price (as Yahoo! appears to have done) proves you lack momentum and dynamism. To question the value and actual worth of YouTube, as Mark Cuban has done repeatedly, is to stand up and declare yourself a heretic and and an idiot and irrelevant all at once.
Of course, maybe those two parties know something we’ve all forgotten (or perhaps that some younger folks never knew). The last multi-billion dollar acquisition of a video-focused service was, of course, when Yahoo! snatched up Mark Cuban’s Broadcast.com. And we all know what happened there.
I have no idea if this is a repeat or not. I have been damned impressed with how quickly YouTube built a strong brand name and loyalty from its users, and it’s clear to me it is far more valuable than Broadcast.com was in 1999. But I just spent the morning reading through the archived articles about the Yahoo-Broadcast.com acquisition, and the parallels are amazing; both deals resonate with analysis from the so-called experts trumpeting the (abstract) notions of “consolidation” and “momentum” and “rich new advertising opportunities.”
It’s our reaction to this that scares me. Our call for big players to do something big (which will probably drive Yahoo! to buy Facebook at a premium) just to prove they’re not sclerotic . Won’t it end up leading to tulip mania, again?
Why don’t we, instead, call this a “one off.” Face(book) it, the YouTube acquisition was a very risky play. And Google is pretty much the only party that could afford to take the risk. Whether it’ll end up as their broadcast.com or Geocities, well we’ll just have to wait and see.
